Argument against video technology

[box2box]

Has been mainly around the fact it's someone all levels of football ( world cup to Sunday league ) would not be able to invest in
In the prem there are now 4 officials all 'miked' up, I doubt this is the case lower down the leagues ?

 

[jayjaysafc]

shirley the best argument against it happened yesterday.
while a good goal was missed by the officials, in the same game an offside goal was allowed, its the "evens out over the season" theory, only it evened out during 1 game

 

[Deleted member 27751]

shirley the best argument against it happened yesterday.
while a good goal was missed by the officials, in the same game an offside goal was allowed, its the "evens out over the season" theory, only it evened out during 1 game

This.

Technology would be used for the goal line but not for the offside so that goal would still have stood.

If technology is introduced it WILL creep into every decision. And when that happens the game as we know it will be dead.

 

[Floyd]

hmmmm the game that doesn't recognise the goal Lampard scored for England in the WC or the goal for QPR yesterday? The game is dead, Long-Live the Game...

 

[ShieldsBlackCat]

If technology is introduced it WILL creep into every decision. And when that happens the game as we know it will be dead.

Hardly. The referees, the way they are now, will still probably find a way to overrule what a video replay has clearly proved.

 

[DaveH]

If that is the argument, then it is a crazy one. Anyone who can't see the difference between Sunday league football and the Premiership is a fool. There is the pace and the amount of money resting on each game. In a close run race, one bad decision can relegate a team or have another miss out on the Champions League. That makes a huge difference to cash income and retaining players etc.

As for slowing down the game, anything controversial and the players surround the ref, slowing the game for a minute or two. He then goes over and talks to another official for a minute or two. Meanwhile the sky viewers at home have seen the incident in slow motion from every angle and know what the correct decision is. The officials might eventually decide the wrong one because at that point the only people in the world who do not know for sure are those on the pitch.

 

[rakuga]

Has been mainly around the fact it's someone all levels of football ( world cup to Sunday league ) would not be able to invest in
In the prem there are now 4 officials all 'miked' up, I doubt this is the case lower down the leagues ?

its always been a flakey excuse - i mean, man city have heated leather chairs for manager and subs, not something you'd see down the park is it...flat, well tended pitches, goals with nets in, actual linesmen who dont play for one of the teams involved etc etc

 

[box2box]

its always been a flakey excuse - i mean, man city have heated leather chairs for manager and subs, not something you'd see down the park is it...flat, well tended pitches, goals with nets in, actual linesmen who dont play for one of the teams involved etc etc

Agree - 4 mikes up officials shows there is already a difference to lower leagues

 

[Deleted member 27751]

hmmmm the game that doesn't recognise the goal Lampard scored for England in the WC or the goal for QPR yesterday? The game is dead, Long-Live the Game...

THe thing is mate, the game hasn't recognsed goals like that through it's 150 odd year history..... and has still been the best game in the world, most watched, most exciting etc etc.

My concern is that by trying to fix a problem that has always always been there and not really caused us any concern up until the last 15 years, we might actually also make a number of other detrimental side effects to the game.

 

[c032745y]

I think one of the other arguments is when do you stop the game? In Rugby Union the "try/no try" is a natural pause in the game. Football does not have such pauses. At what point should the ref have stopped the game for video conference. How do you restart the game if he decision is not given?

Mistakes are made by players & managers (NB missed the ball completely yesterday) yet we concentrate on officials split second assessments.

 

[Smiler]

I've played many a game without bloody linesmen on a Sunday so the whole can't implement it throughout football excuse it's f***ing bollocks. They won't do it because it will prove the officials to be not infallible which they won't admit to EVER

 

[safc_graeme]

I think one of the other arguments is when do you stop the game? In Rugby Union the "try/no try" is a natural pause in the game. Football does not have such pauses. At what point should the ref have stopped the game for video conference. How do you restart the game if he decision is not given?

Mistakes are made by players & managers (NB missed the ball completely yesterday) yet we concentrate on officials split second assessments.

Don't stop the game.

The 4th official is in radio contact with the ref. He should be able to watch a monitor or iPad or something for goalmouth action, and say goal or no goal just as the linesman would

 

[bahtat]

A lot of people dont seem to understand that goal line technology and video technology are not necessarily the same thing

 

[Archie Blagger]

The sooner football moves with the times the better. If anything video technology has helped improve the decision making of refs in Cricket and NFL.

There will probably be a period were it does creep into the game before a happy medium is found. Prime example being NFL, where contrary to popular belief, not all decisions are made or upheld by video evidence.

Personally Im not interested in discussing controversial decisions down the pub with mates, which seems to be about the best argument against technology at the moment. I want definates, i.e. was it a goal yes or no, was the foul in the box, did player A dive etc.

 

[bahtat]

I think one of the other arguments is when do you stop the game? In Rugby Union the "try/no try" is a natural pause in the game. Football does not have such pauses. At what point should the ref have stopped the game for video conference. How do you restart the game if he decision is not given?

Mistakes are made by players & managers (NB missed the ball completely yesterday) yet we concentrate on officials split second assessments.

Goal line technology does not have to mean reviewing a video which would result in the scenario you paint, it beats me that a supermarket door knows that I am wanting to enter the store yet we dont have a similar system, yet, that tells the ref that a ball has crossed the line

 

[Archie Blagger]

A lot of people dont seem to understand that goal line technology and video technology are not necessarily the same thing

This is correct, although the general argument seems to be that once technology starts playing a part, it will continue to be introduced.

For that to happen goal line techology would have to be a success, which then defeats the whole argument against technology.

Goal line technology does not have to mean reviewing a video which would result in the scenario you paint, it beats me that a supermarket door knows that I am wanting to enter the store yet we dont have a similar system, yet, that tells the ref that a ball has crossed the line

Or one that points out you 'forgot' to pay for that dvd at the bottom of your trolley.

 

[bahtat]

The sooner football moves with the times the better. If anything video technology has helped improve the decision making of refs in Cricket and NFL.

There will probably be a period were it does creep into the game before a happy medium is found. Prime example being NFL, where contrary to popular belief, not all decisions are made or upheld by video evidence.

Personally Im not interested in discussing controversial decisions down the pub with mates, which seems to be about the best argument against technology at the moment. I want definates, i.e. was it a goal yes or no, was the foul in the box, did player A dive etc.

was it a goal, was it in the area are deffinate matters of fact, many dives are and will always be subjective, videos or no no video

 

[AC Mack]

This.

Technology would be used for the goal line but not for the offside so that goal would still have stood.

If technology is introduced it WILL creep into every decision. And when that happens the game as we know it will be dead.

This is the crux of it for me too.

I'd be more than happy to introduce video technology on the goal lines if people were happy to leave it there. Unfortunately, they won't and the game on TV yesterday was a shining example. If Clint Hill's goal was retrospectively given after being missed in the first place, why shouldn't Cisse's goal retrospectively be chalked off after being missed in the first place.

I'm surprised many people don't see that that's the way many people will look at it. I can guarantee that if those two decisions went against Sunderland (one in which an incident is spotted via technology, another which is missed because technology isn't used for that scenario) there'd be uproar by some on here.

 

[Kborom]

If that is the argument, then it is a crazy one. Anyone who can't see the difference between Sunday league football and the Premiership is a fool. There is the pace and the amount of money resting on each game. In a close run race, one bad decision can relegate a team or have another miss out on the Champions League. That makes a huge difference to cash income and retaining players etc.

As for slowing down the game, anything controversial and the players surround the ref, slowing the game for a minute or two. He then goes over and talks to another official for a minute or two. Meanwhile the sky viewers at home have seen the incident in slow motion from every angle and know what the correct decision is. The officials might eventually decide the wrong one because at that point the only people in the world who do not know for sure are those on the pitch.

this, what sport has technology been implemented in and failed?

 

[bahtat]

This is correct, although the general argument seems to be that once technology starts playing a part, it will continue to be introduced. For that to happen goal line techology would have to be a success, which then defeats the whole argument against technology.



Or one that points out you 'forgot' to pay for that dvd at the bottom of your trolley.

I agree just like the introduction of 1 sub 40 years ago has led to the 3 (with goodness knows how many we have on the bench) now days