Technology in soccer-yes or no?

[rhys159]

This has been a long-going dispute.
We all know that computer technology has the potential to change football, especially when it comes to 'goal line' technology. However, there are some soccer 'purists' who insist that it would take away the authority of the referee and that football should stay as it is.

We all know that if it had been implemented beforehand, it would have completely changed matches. Remember England vs Germany in World Cup 2010 Round of 16. 2-1 to Germany. Frank Lampard hit the crossbar and the ball, quite obviously bounced past the line and back out of the goal again. The referee did not see this, and let play go on. If technology had been at hand, it would, however, be a turning point in the match.

Technology has been used in other sports to great success, such as in rugby or cricket. But now soccer fans all over the world are calling for the type of technology in the previously mentioned sports to come to soccer.

A quote:

The only person in the world who doesn't want technology in football is Sepp Blatter. And he happens to be the president of FIFA

So what do you think? Yes, or no?

 

[Dennisch]

1000% yes.

The game is becoming to fast for the ref's eyes.

 

[C-ZETA]

Yes for that. Although it would be difficult to implement it into the current game.

 

[Omnis]

Yes, of course. It does slow the game down a bit when you have to review things. Expect like +10 minutes of stoppage time.

 

[Rossticles]

It's very difficult to say. There are so many things that could be reviewed, from every foul to every goal. It would lead to quite a bit of stoppage time. It would be interesting to see it implemented like it is in the NFL with each coach getting a certain number of challenges then being awarded one more if they're correct. I think it would be much more useful and much less time-consuming that way. Otherwise soccer matches would be much longer than they are currently.

Then the question comes in who would tell the coaches to review whatever just happened. Soccer as it is currently doesn't support reviewing in any way. I do hope to see some form of review before Brazil 2014 though.

 

[VeyronR8]

1000% yes.

1000% agreed

 

[Joel]

I think a disputed goal should certainly go to video review. Otherwise, I don't feel like I know the game enough to say whether or not it should be used at other times.

 

[ASH32]

I think a disputed goal should certainly go to video review. Otherwise, I don't feel like I know the game enough to say whether or not it should be used at other times.

That statement alone shows you know it better than the people who run the game.👍

They need to start somewhere with technology in Football/Soccer/Synchronized Diving, call it whatever you want, I don't care and making sure all the goals that are scored in televised games are true, legit goals is a good a way as any.

The cameras that cover the games these days are good enough to judge goal line incidents without the need for any lasers or any other silly ideas. If the ball clearly crosses the line, it's a goal, if it doesn't, it isn't, it's as simple as that.

They could also try using TV replays to make sure the refs correctly spot the ball where the foul was committed, too many times this season has a free kick been given when it should have been a penalty and vice versa.

 

[Wiegert]

1000% yes.

Completely agree. I can't stress this point enough, especially regarding 'Goal Line Technology'.

It appears that Fifa are at least going to try out Goal Line Technology in 2012-13.

 

[cuco33]

You know... I was once one of those people who was massively behind FIFA's ways, and how some of these rules are so old and the ideas could ruin footy... but after much discussion with friends I'm completely on the other side now. Humans by nature make mistakes. These mistakes could ultimately have teams lose when they shouldn't. I think footy should adapt something like NFL has. Each coach has a flag of some sorts. If there is a questionable call, goal, card, etc the coach can toss the flag for a quick video review. If coach is right then nothing is lost and play continues. If coach is wrong, then he loses a substitution. If no substitutions are left then the coach can't ask for a review.

Also, throw in the goal line technologies that guarantee a goal when it's a goal.

The flow of the game continues, players will still grow tired, and subs will still be used. It won't happen every game but the few that a review is needed, it's there. Right now teams can go down a man over a wrongfully given red card, lose the game and at most the team can appeal so the red gets dissolved so the player can play the next match.. but the team still keeps that loss when it's already too late.

 

[spiker]

You'll get nothing but a resounding "yes" from me.

I'm also quite surprised at the responses.

 

[JediRage]

What???? Of course not. How else will Martin Atkinson help Chelsea win trophies?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Football is a joke in my opinion, unless they embrace modern technology my contempt for it will only increase.

Billions in wages, TV rights, prize money, sponsorship etc etc... not to mention the hopes and dreams of the fans, rest on the split second decision of somebody normally stood 30ft away, running backwards, trying to keep his eye on two blokes running at full tilt with arms and legs flailing...... its worth hundreds of billions as an industry and they are seriously saying that they can't come up with a workable solution to how to introduce it effectively.... I can only draw the conclusion that FIFA is basically corrupt at the highest levels.

 

[bradford]

100% yes. Especially goal-line and offside technology. Some matters will be judged by the referee, so there is still room for mistakes, though.

 

[DK]

I have nothing but contempt for that prick Blatter. I am 100% behind video technology.

 

[Liquid]

I see Rugby as the perfect precedent. It doesn't have to be used for every frivolous foul.

But if it's a trip in the box, or a dubious goal/no goal and the ref thinks "You know, I could do with a second look at that", then an extra few seconds won't harm anyone. Rugby has a better 'extra time' method too. Keep the clock frozen when the ball is not in play, pre-whistle dead ball situations et cetera.

I love football but this refusal to embrace new technology is leaving it in the stone age.

 

[ASH32]

I see Rugby as the perfect precedent. It doesn't have to be used for every frivolous foul.

But if it's a trip in the box, or a dubious goal/no goal and the ref thinks "You know, I could do with a second look at that", then an extra few seconds won't harm anyone. Rugby has a better 'extra time' method too. Keep the clock frozen when the ball is not in play, pre-whistle dead ball situations et cetera.

I love football but this refusal to embrace new technology is leaving it in the stone age.

I agree and it wouldn't even take any time out the match. Every time there is a dubious goal or no goal for that matter, the players stop playing to shout/swear at the ref or his assistants and that usually takes nearly a minute anyway. If you add video replay, then you would assume the clock will be frozen straight away until a decision is made and therefore the ball could actually be in play longer with technology than it is currently.

 

[daan]

Anyone considered how this would be done in a practical sense? We can assume that big leagues and national contests would be able to have the technology installed, but what about smaller countries and leagues? You then run the risk of creating 2 seperate rulebooks for a game that tries to remain simple with a universal set of rules.

For example, a game in the Scottish Premier league between Motherwell and Kilmarnock to decide a possible Europa League place is televised for a highlights package by 1 TV camera. That can't possibly pick up every moment of controversy. There is also no big screen in the stadium to display any results. Who pays to get the cameras in the posts or some other goal line technology? Motherwell's next match could then be at Celtic or Rangers and they will have all the tech as they can afford it. Are they then allowed to use that tech in some games but not others? Are they not allowed to use it as no one else in the league has it?

For me, technology creates far more issues than it solves.

• It interrupts what should be a flowing game
• Who pays for it?
• Does it apply in all games?
• Football is a fast game and some things are never clear even watching highlights from multiple, slow motion, camera angles

[/devil's advocate]

 

[Liquid]

Perhaps on a trial basis it should be implemented in the major international championships. Stadia in these competitions are (supposed to be) of a good standard and doubtless have LCD screens of some sort.

The rules of the game fall under FIFA's jurisdiction, but certain 'competition rules' vary country-to-country (Away goals, ET+Pens or straight to pens) so it may be up to the individual FAs, but who knows? Far from knowing the solution, but I agree with the principle of video technology.

I doubt serious research will be conducted under Blatter's Premiership.

 

[Touring Mars]

For me, it's mainly about preserving the authority of the officials...

I think it would be fine to have a video ref for disputed goals - just as they have in rugby... it's fair, and it requires minimal new technology - any televised game already has the necessary tech, and most (if not all?) league games are televised these days? Cameraman missed the goal? Then the appeal is void and the ref's decision stands.

But that is where it would end for me. Currently, the referee/linesman's word is final in all matters. Disputed goals could be one exception to that final authority, where teams could appeal to the video ref for clarification once or twice per game, per half, or whenever the video referee deemed it to be necessary. For other things, however - fouls, throw-ins, corners, off-sides etc., it could be a dangerous route to follow to allow players to question the authority of the ref at any opportunity.

The authority of the officials absolutely needs to be maintained in order for the game to survive, and therefore introducing the means for players to undermine that authority would be very risky indeed.

 

[snowdog58]

I think some sort of system to detect when the ball crosses the goal line, (like the system used in tennis), is ok but leave the rest to the match officials.

 

[Liquid]

Agree with you Touring Mars. If I did not make it clear, I think video technology should only apply to goals and penalty appeals.

In addition, I think refereeing standards need improving, certainly outside the big leagues. I am an ardent Wrexham fan and let me tell you, Conference refereeing is of a shambolic standard. Leagues 1 and 2 are no better neither.

 

[NINE_HUNDRED]

Definitely need goal line tech. We have a replay on TV within 2 seconds to see whether the ball is over the line or not. I don't really think it would slow the game down, the game gets slowed down by the players reacting and running to the ref, which wouldn't happen if some guy tells the ref in his ear, goal or no goal.

As for offsides etc, I'm not sure. They happen a bit too often for it to work smoothly.

 

[Sureboss]

We need it for goal line technology (or just when Gomes is playing for Spurs), you could implement it quite easily and it wouldn't take much time out of a game, least not because it doesn't happen every game.

That should be our starting point, if that goals well, then we can see what we do with other technology, but I don't really think we have the technology to assist with offsides, etc. So that's a few years off.

 

[Robin]

I think there should definitely be hawkeye style technology in football such as using it for the goal line and for determining if someone is off side. It should be implemented like in tennis where each team only has a certain number of appeals they can use with the system. I don't think it would make the referee any less important and it hasn't had a negative effect in other sports.

I do acknowledge the worries about creating a two tier level of football because of the smaller clubs not being able to afford these systems but you have to ask yourself isn't there already a higher accuracy in richer clubs, leagues and important matches simply because they hire better and more experienced referees? I don't think the guy who ref's the world cup final is the same level as the guy ref'ing a local club match.

Robin.

 

[Lucas]

A must for goals and penalty appeals.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Interuption to flow of play? that argument doesn't hold much water with me.. the biggest cause of that, is the players diving to the ground and flailing around like idiots, then arguing every decision the ref makes.... which is another thing I hate about football!

 

[Touring Mars]

Interuption to flow of play?

I'm Scottish, what is this 'flow of play' you speak of?

Seriously, though... I agree with you here... the 'flow of play' (if it even exists in a game) is constantly interrupted anyway, with or without some new technologies...

 

[rhys159]

Interesting comments. I'm kind of split. There is the devil's advocate, as daan has said, but then again, it would be extremely useful in matches. I think the best solution is to trial it for a few games and see how it goes. I think football will eventually end up using technology, but maybe now isn't the best time to
implement it.

Also, on the case of interrupting play, the ref could blow the whistle immediately, and if he was wrong, a freekick could be awarded to the team in possession of the ball last. If it was a wrongly-accused foul, then the team who had made the tackle/foul would be awarded the freekick.