• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Argument against video technology

Status
Not open for further replies.
all it needs is something to buzz or light up when the ball crosses the line.

However, I'd imagine it would take 3 weeks for a manager to question the technology when it gives a decision he didn't like. Probably Mark Hughes or Tony Pullis
 

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 ?

How about less technology, only have 1 centrally positioned TV camera?
Less proof less whinging

Just a thought
 
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.

The technology that I have always wanted to see is the live-ball / dead-ball clock. Simple but effective. Eveyone knows how long there is to go, and it would prevent the Old Trafford "Play until Man. U. equalise" refereeing policy.
 
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.

exactly.

people like to say "there's so much money now" but is it money that made the game as successful as it is? its a great game and part of that is controversy from bad decisions by players and officials.

there big teams now that will be where they are because of wrong decisions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top