Hope this means no more useless 5th official. Although Platini is against it so might take a while for international tournaments to use it.

 

The Premier League is using goal-Line technology this year!

I didnt see this besides the gif- so on Day one it had a pretty big test. Any thoughts from anyone?

 

Did they stop play to analyse this?

 

The more technology the better. Anxiously awaiting the immediate video proof for penalties and red cards (and goals being checked for offside or fouls beforehand). But I guess that will still take years if not decades with those old men at FIFA (not even want to mention the retard Platini who is against any technology)...

A nice step by EPL though!

 

Pretty straightforward really, it's an absolute must and it's ridiculous how it wasn't implemented before - and how only the EPL has it.

 

I think like tiger said offside needs technology as well. It has been good for the epl,to have even if some broadcasters have shown some ridiculous shots :howler:

 

about freaking time and I even consider expanding it to all incidents which happen inside the 18 yard box!

For example penalty kicks, close offsides disallowed goals should be reviewed, but only inside the box

 

The easiest and least time consuming things are as Tiger said - checking if a red card/penalty is justified or not, and confirming goals (both can easily be done and finished at the same time-frame it takes a team to celebrate or it takes a player to walk off the field)

I honestly can't think of any possible reason why at the very least the things above can't be done as reviews by the 4th official.

Even if it won't fix everything, it will make the game MUCH more fair.

 

it is amazing, was used yesterday in Chelsea v Hull and ruled out a goal for Chelsea...they should now introduce it for offsides.

 

The first use was in a Stoke game:thumbsup: After one of the 2000 saves Bego made.

 

How would the technology work for offsides?

 

easy, each team gets the right to call in the hawk eye if a goal is awarded and there is suspicion of offside, instead of defenders haplessly flapping their arms at the poor linesman who didnt see anything in the heavy rain.... true it doesnt solve the whole problem (say a player is through and linesman wrongly calls it offside), but at least we dont aware incorrect goals so you eliminate half of the problem...the hawk eye similar to detecting a ball can detect where players where when the final ball was played so goals like this become something of the past....

to say leave things as they are to add excitement to the game is ridiclous, teams get relegated because of one bad decision thats losses of $ millions...

 

It'd have to be done by another official looking at the replay wouldn't it? I don't like that. And how would You implement it? Challenges?

 

We've been through this before.

It won't be perfect (atleast what I'm suggesting) - but checking and validating goals by the outside official should not take more then 30 seconds, at which point the players would probably still be celebrating anyways.

Going to the screen and making sure there wasn't an offside, a foul, or what-have-you, and if there was you call it off - and if there was a goal called off which was legal you rule it a goal.

Hardly any sort of real impact on the game as far as prolonging it, which for some odd reason seems to some of you guys as the most important aspect of the game, instead of you know, actually having a fairer game.

Teams take longer to celebrate goals then it is to look at a screen and see if the goal was legit or not. shouldn't be any sort of hassle at all, and it'll drastically improve the refereeing even if it won't fix everything.

Players take longer to react and leave the pitch after red cards then it will take an outside official to check the screens and see if it's justified or not.

Teams take longer to complain and react to penalties given longer then it will take an outside official to check if the penalty is justified or not.

 

We've been through this before.

It won't be perfect (atleast what I'm suggesting) - but checking and validating goals by the outside official should not take more then 30 seconds, at which point the players would probably still be celebrating anyways.

Going to the screen and making sure there wasn't an offside, a foul, or what-have-you, and if there was you call it off - and if there was a goal called off which was legal you rule it a goal.

Hardly any sort of real impact on the game as far as prolonging it, which for some odd reason seems to some of you guys as the most important aspect of the game, instead of you know, actually having a fairer game.

Teams take longer to celebrate goals then it is to look at a screen and see if the goal was legit or not. shouldn't be any sort of hassle at all, and it'll drastically improve the refereeing even if it won't fix everything.

Players take longer to react and leave the pitch after red cards then it will take an outside official to check the screens and see if it's justified or not.

Exactly. And even if the 4th official is not sufficient for doing that just put one more official in a video room, they are all wired with headphones anyway these days. And when you then take out those two ridiculous goal line officials that never do anything right anyway you even save money on one official. p

 

I can also see Google Glasses as a real groundbreaking tool to improve refereeing, as it continues to progress and develop in the future (If FIFA will actually turn to google and ask for help, which they obviously won't I guess)

 

Horrible idea.

 

Thanks for the valuable input

 

Nothing more needs to be said! But here goes. It'd still be controversial because human intervention is still needed and as we've seen with the cricket You still get mistakes and the fact they've had chance to review them makes it even worse. Anything that is subjective like a foul or offside should be left to the on field officials.

 

So you'd rather have the glass completely empty, rather then have it even 1/6th full?

Quite the logic you have going on there.

 

I don't think there's a problem with incorrect decisions it adds to the game. I think goal line technology is long overdue but anything else is plain wrong.

 

Incorrect decision ADDS to the game? In a multi-billion dollar business where every mistake can be crucial and have various implications on all involved?

Well, I guess you're right, there really is nothing more that needs to be said.

Allowing an outside official to view the goal and look for replay or foul or offside, or check if a foul was inside or outside the penalty, or if the player dived or not, or check if the red card really was justified or it can be downgraded to a yellow- even if at times there will still be mistakes(would be quite rarely, but there will) - at the grand scheme of things you will get MUCH more calls right, I mean a ridiculous amount, and the game will be played in a much more fair way - with hardly any real huge impact as far as prolonging the game.

 

Yes, they create talking points and moments of sheer anger and frustration, they're shit but great at the same time. And not every decision would be correct with the technology so what's the point? And I don't buy the multi billion pound business thing. It's sport first and foremost and in sport people make mistakes, it adds to the game and helps to make it what it is. I hate technology across the board though and the current Ashes series has just confirmed to me how shit it is.

 

Btw, if incorrent decisions adds to the game, why have Goal Line technology then?

Why is it long overdue?

Let's leave that to the in-game officials aswell, they seem to be managing it just as well as they manage calling for offsides.

It adds to the game, no?

 

OK, so it wouldn't be applied to offsides, it'd be a different technology (video-review).

I'm inclined to a "no thanks", smells NFL-isation

 

Because it should be a technology like hawkeye at the cricket or tennis that is right all the time. If it does make it perfect then sound, I can absolutely see the argument for it and agree with it. But for things like fouls and offsides where the decision would lie with a human it would add time onto the game and mistakes could still be made, I just don't see the point.

If the hawkeye technology gets one decision wrong, I'd want it gone, it becomes pointless.

 

Again I'll go back to the water in a glass analogy.

We as football fans are almost dying of dehydration with all the EXTREME amount of mistakes made, while the referees are clearly helpless.
What I suggested, or not exactly but guidelines from it, would offer us at the very least a sip of water, every now and then.
And your response to that is "No screw that. I'm not taking that sip of water, either you give me a full ice-cold bottle, or I'd opt to stay here and continue to slowly die of dehydration."

Does not make a lot of sense to me, if any. I guess we view things extremely different.

The way I see it, beggars can't be choosers.

I guess the fundamental difference between us, is you don't see us as beggars - seeing as you think mistakes and calling the game consistently unfairly actually adds to the game.

 

"Over the line!".. or not, is a rather clear cut case every time.

Not so with fouls and offsides (which are way more frequent too).

 

With today's technology, how many offsides really can't be told apart by an outside person watching replays in superslowmotion?
Or checking if the foul occurred inside the box or not?

If the call is THAT extremely difficult to get - you simply stick to the original decision on the field.

Again - while there might still be cases where it'll be called wrong, the 98% of the times it'll be called right and prevent loads of unfair and uncorrect goals allowed/disallowed, would make it well worth our while.

And again, the prolonging of the game as explained above should hardly be any different, too.