|
|
Post by frankiegth on Nov 20, 2009 11:52:03 GMT
Is it time football embraced camera technology after yet another glaring incident of cheating being missed by the officials.
I think it is. What makes football and its match day officials so "precious" that it would undermine their authority? Rugby refs and cricket umpires have had to embrace the idea of the "all seeing" camera.
I'm not on about every free kick and dickend throwing just the things that really matter as did the ball cross the line.
A good starting place could be with international games.
What do you "tin-potters" reckon, am I in a minority or the majority?
|
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Nov 20, 2009 12:23:13 GMT
Wouldn't that just widen the gulf between league and non-league football? These things ain't too cheap. Why should the League have the opportunuity to have this and not us?
|
|
|
|
Post by Col ISIHAC. on Nov 20, 2009 12:59:38 GMT
Both versions of egg chasing have embraced this at international and top-tier club level without any problem.
The question is a simple one in Union. Is there any reason why I cannot award a try?
In League, the refs get more specific; grounding, double movement and stuff and it has become a part of the game. The crowd - always well behaved as egg chasing officionados are, waiting patiently for the decision on the big screen.
I haven't seen the lack of use at lower levels cited as being divisive either. In football, if the Union approach; i.e. Is there any reason as to why the goal cannot stand? was adopted, then incidents such as that in Paris would be resolved immediately. Make it mandatory at Premiership and Championship level, get Sky to sponsor the installation of the technology and off you go.
|
|
|
|
Post by thevicar on Nov 20, 2009 12:59:56 GMT
I'm in a minority of 1 in the office in this discussion. All the premiership plastic fans are in favour. I can't see why we need different rules the further up the pyramid you get.
Given that most decision involve a large amount of interpretation of events, it won't change the ref getting blamed by the managers (see the NFL for case after case of this) or decisions being made that are confusing. Can you imagine a game that had to be stopped every 30 seconds to check whether player X had been pulling player y's shirt or not? Farcical. So decisions will still end up being wrong.
Maybe goal line technology which could give immediate answers would be useful and FA / FIFA introducing post match offences for the more blatant forms of cheating (e.g. suspend Mr Henry for the group stages / whole world cup?) would have some effect. But during the game? Too slow, too disruptive and frankly a bit annoying.
Echoing Sal's point, there is no way that all league clubs could afford this. Just another cost barrier to competition and a way for the Haves of football to lord it over the have nots. Imagine Liverpool getting drawn away to Havant and Waterlooville in the cup - 'we can't play there, they haven't got the necessary technology, it won't be fair on our players...'
|
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Nov 20, 2009 15:36:27 GMT
If the FA decided to reach into their pockets and pay for simple goal line technology at every ground above a certain grading then it wouldn't be an issue for less well off teams or non-league minnows in the cup.
|
|
|
|
Post by ojiveojive on Nov 20, 2009 16:29:27 GMT
It has to happen, if only to protect referees. As the laws of the game stand at the moment every decision is: 'In the opinion of the referee'. This is a foolish standpoint, if everyone in the ground or on tele can see whether or not something happened it can only bring the game into disrepute. As for the Henry farrago; have a penalty shoot-out behind closed doors and ban him from all internationals for a year, that would get the message across that we will not tolerate cheating. I've long thought that if a keeper is dismissed for handling outside his area then an opposition player should also be dismissed for handling inside the area.
With regard to incessantly stopping the game, this need not happen. An official can watch the TV replay and let the ref know within seconds if he is convinced of an infringement or not, without a break in the flow of the game. If the question is whether or not a given goal should stand then the game will have already stopped, so there is no problem as it takes the best part of a minute to restart the game after a goal, anyway.
Having technology at the top end should not affect us tinpotters, we shall be able to continue to berate the officials without hindrance in the full knowledge that we are right, they are wrong and what's more they can actually hear our brickbats which will continue to ring in their ears throughout the match.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Nov 22, 2009 8:05:09 GMT
I watch a lot of the Canadian Football League (cfl.ca) and they have a system where a team can challenge a decision that they feel is incorrect. I've not looked into the technicalities of their rules such as penalties for incorrect challenges/ how many are allowed but i certainly haven't seen any frivolous challenges made and it works well for their game. It looks like an attractive option, that Trappatoni could have issued a challenge and the ruling on the field could've been changed from "goal" to "free kick Eire." As for the Henry farrago, it looks like it will just have to stand, same as when that stumpy argy cheat handballed England out in 1986, though at least Henry has tried to show some contrition rather than glorying in it. If we put ourselves in Henry's position, what would we have done? Maybe the answer is that all pro-footballers (and especially internationals) should be packed off to Thailand sometime in their career for a couple of months to spend time as Buddhist monks to help mitigate the greed defilement that all humans posses to some extent  |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Nov 22, 2009 10:03:27 GMT
I think eventually technology will come in, but, for what dicisions?
Where do you draw the line? Will it be used just to register whether the ball has/hasn't crossed the line. This was never in doubt in the Henry case that was about handling, so would it be used for that. If so why only handball in the penalty area, a potential Pandora's box could be opened up.
Perhaps video should be used to put the onus on players to be honest, with "draconion" punishments for the individual and his team being levied retrospectively even though the result could be changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ojiveojive on Nov 22, 2009 11:47:46 GMT
The three obvious ones would be :
1. Did the ball cross the line for a goal?
2. Was a foul committed (anywhere) by the attacking side in the build up to a goal?
3. Was a foul committed inside the penalty area by the defending side?
By limiting challenges to those three areas you answer the questions that have will a direct impact on the result:
1. Was it a goal?
2. Should a goal be disallowed?
3. Should a penalty be given?
How many challenges to a ref's decisions could be made would be up for discussion by the law makers but a failed challenge might result in losing further challenges on a one for one basis. This would evolve over time as I seem to remember that the advent of subs initially meant one sub from three, now it's three from five at tinpot level, three from seven in european competitions and competitive internationals.
|
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Nov 22, 2009 16:41:11 GMT
Perhaps video should be used to put the onus on players to be honest, with "draconion" punishments for the individual and his team being levied retrospectively even though the result could be changed. What would be a draconian punishment in football? The worst that could happen would be a fine and/or suspension, I can't imagine Henry having his hand cut off and his forehead branded with a hot iron |
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Nov 22, 2009 18:00:40 GMT
Perhaps video should be used to put the onus on players to be honest, with "draconion" punishments for the individual and his team being levied retrospectively even though the result could be changed. What would be a draconian punishment in football? The worst that could happen would be a fine and/or suspension, I can't imagine Henry having his hand cut off and his forehead branded with a hot iron In Henry's case, barred from playing for france for two seasons and France starting on -3pts in the finals. |
|
|
|
Post by J Esaj PRA on Nov 23, 2009 20:08:30 GMT
No to live video technology - it cannot work without interrupting the continuous flow of the game.
Non-intrusive 'proximity sensing' to detect if the whole of the ball crosses the whole of the line for a goal would be pretty cheap and easy to introduce where the match officials already have audio-based links. Beyond that, everything is still open to interpretation and/or inconclusive evidence, so why not keep to the simple system that has worked for decades? In those cases where TV footage shows proof of 'cheating' or an error of judgement, suspensions/fines should be imposed or rescinded after the game. The result of a game should only be tinkered with in truly exceptional circumstances.
If you couldn't debate the refereeing decisions after the game, you'd be removing a huge part of the fun.
To be honest, France did us all a favour by preventing an outbreak of 'Plastic Paddys' in the summer of 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Nov 23, 2009 21:40:43 GMT
so why not keep to the simple system that has worked for decades? I don't think it has worked. When I had a Sunderland season ticket I saw Ole Solskjear trip over a sprinkler and get awarded a penalty by G. Poll. A sprinkler! I have to say comprehensive camera technology is the only way the game can continue at an elite level as within 10 years we've went from glorifying the mettle of players like Adams, Keane and further back Moore, Hunter etc to fostering a game which rewards repeated and tactical cheating. Also Jase, given the entire ball has to cross the line and only a certain circumfrence of the ball touches the ground how would the sensors remain any less controversial? I'm all in favour of a live review of a game by an official and a citing system chaired by a body of ex players or officials who can sweep up the incidents that perhaps don't play an influential part in the game but still exhibit unsportsmanlike behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by J Esaj PRA on Nov 23, 2009 22:41:33 GMT
Well, the circumference of the ball is known (within certain parameters) as is the position of the rectangle defining the goal. From then on it is fairly simple geometry to calculate the position of a sphere relative to a plane and a simpler Boolean decision to decide if the whole of the sphere lies on one side of the plane or not. An audio signal to the referee if the ball is 100% over the line will then remove all doubt about goal scoring.
Video cameras couldn't ever give you that level of certainty.
You could have contact sensors to detect hand ball too, but other fouls are less certain. Referee's and their interpretation is the way forward for those.
I'm sure we can all point to a poor decision by a referee costing our team a goal, or even the whole game, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not that important. Similar errors will happen in all games and things will even out. That's the way it has always been and it has worked - the game has retained its popularity.
The problem is that more money is involved these days. The Irish don't want to be in the World Cup for the glory - they want the cash! Increasing TV coverage has also allowed referees (and players) to be analysed in finer detail. Years ago people never knew 100% what happened in any given incident - they just went by what they saw in the blink of an eye. Discussing this after the game, arguing the toss over nothing is all part of the fun. TV coverage is destroying this, because now we can often know for sure what happened. Not always though, as the cameras can't see every angle. If you can't remove all of the uncertainty, why not save a whole lot of time, money and effort by not bothering with extra officials to review live video?
You can decrease 'cheating' by rigorous evaluation of the evidence available from normal TV coverage, if backed by a good penalty system. That doesn't have to interfere with the live game at all, but could clean up the game a lot if the will was there.
|
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Nov 23, 2009 22:49:03 GMT
If you can't remove all of the uncertainty, why not save a whole lot of time, money and effort by not bothering with extra officials to review live video? If you can't save every premature baby then why bother with all the time, money and effort of medical technology? |
|
