BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Articles/ all comments

These 99 comments are related to an article called:

"Because technology scares me..."

Page 1 of 2

posted Mar 6, 2010

Gotta say, I agree with you on the whole argument about it slowing the game down.

So much time already gets wasted with players hounding the officials, it wouldn't take any longer for a video ref who has access to multiple angles to take a look at an incident, in fact it'd probab;y take less time (provided its only used for the more major incidents, obviously not every shirt tug needs an investigation).

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

I think the goal-line tech thing is also supposed to cost a stupid amount of money (someone taking advantage here, in my view), especially when you describe it as simply as you do.

Some of the options put forward are pretty wacky, to the extent that any "interference" at all is simply wiped off the table.

It would be so simple to trial replays & a fifth official to look at them, at hardly any further expense, so that everything WE see would be reported immediately to the ref. But the intransigence of Valcke, Blatter et al must have - MUST have - some hidden agenda. Their arguments hold less & less water every time we hear them.

In almost every game now, there are "what ifs" in terms of refereeing errors, and my estimate is that about 30% of results hinge on them. At that rate, the outcome of football matches is being judged more like gymnastics, & it's hard to remain a committed fan when the artistry, strategy & technique of the sport is compromised to this extent.

| complain about this comment

comment by GazCFC (U7243587)

posted Mar 6, 2010

Technology (or the lack of it) has cost Chelsea so many points over the years. It's got to be time to have video replays etc. so come on FA get your act together.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

I'd like a complete statement why they reject it, rather than snippets, which is all I see.
I suspect there's a lot more than is being said. One of the main problems I can think of, is eg: a shot hits the bar, bounces down over the line (not given) and out into play. Play carries on for three minutes, possibly with a goal being scored up the other end, a booking or a sending off.

Do they then review the video and rule out the last three minutes, or do they have an overall ref in the stands who alerts the field ref within eg 30 seconds that it was in fact a goal, and he then stops play?

The difference with tennis and rugby is that they use the technology only when the ball goes dead. Actually I might be wrong. In tennis, if the second shot of a 20 ball rally might be out, can the loser of the rally challenge it and possibly win the point? I've not seen that happen yet.

However, there are more complications in football than are usually realised.

| complain about this comment

comment by zee4 (U14257822)

posted Mar 6, 2010

Totally agree with both comments. This decision once again shows quite how far out of touch FIFA and similar really are. Talk about sticking your head in the sand! Technology is inevitable in time anyway. Beyond this, technology is used all over the place in the game already. It beggars belief that the one place that deserves technology (the pitch) is the one area FIFA won't allow technology.

As said above, with every controversial decision there's loads of time always wasted. Meanwhile, TV has the replay cued up within seconds. There's all kinds of ways this technology could be introduced and more besides that wouldn't impact the flow of the game at all. You could have a 4th or 5th official like rugby, challenges like in NFL etc.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

It's a missed opportunity. It's been in rugby league for years and it works fine. They don't use it for everything such as forward passes due to the angle the camera may be looking at the incident from would make it difficult to judge on that aspect but when they review whether a score is good it actually adds to the drama. Granted it slows the game down a little in that respect but in football the players waste so much time cheating and arguing I don't see it as a issue. The camera or microchip would provide definitive proof then everyone can just get on with it. Even if they just used the chip idea for the ball crossing the line, you can't argue with that and it's instantaneous. Very backward thinking by the powers that be.

| complain about this comment

comment by Rorb (U2165012)

posted Mar 6, 2010

World cup, last minute, drawing, one team score, ref said they didn't, other team win on penno's.

I'm sure the beauty of the game would appeal to all in that instance. Someone was robbed, and someone got something they didn't merit.

OR

15 seconds, it was a goal, thank you very much.

Goal line should be only the first step, and it's a pretty easy one, and there is not a single cohesive argument over a piece of technology that simply says "Goal / Not Goal".

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Surprised by this decision, but I can see some rationale behind the decision. What I would say if FIFA will not allow technology, change the rules to make it easier for the officials.

Change the law such that the ball is not deemed to have crossed any line until it has touched the ground or an object. That would mean a goal would not be scored until the ball touched the ground past the line or the netting. Same with throw ins and corners, let the play continue unless the ball touches something out of play. This can make things a lot easier for the officials and redefines what the definition of a goal for all sides equally. Not a major disadvantage when you consider the simplicity it adds.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

These goal line incidents are very rare so not worth having goal line cameras etc.
But when a game is on tv the rules should be changed so a watching official has the power to stop the game and say stop that was /not a goal.
The authorities think this would undermine the ref but the ref and linesman are only human.
The ITV commentator at the pompey game saw the incident half a dozen times and couldnt decide whether it was a goal or not, so the ref on the pitch has no chance without help.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Here's my cynical view..

Money. the big teams usually get the decisions, the refs are 'expected' to give them some breaks so they can progress in world cups and CLs.. technology would prevent the big nations/clubs from benefitting from dodgy decisions. FIFA/UEFA know the cash roundabout has to continue.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Although i think goal line technology may work in football, i think with regards to other areas of football technology wouldn't help it. Pundits and fans can't agree five hours after a game pouring over slow motion replays from different angles, who is to say that a video ref could reach a correct decision in under 30 seconds. The fact is that alot of football rules are subjective and opinion, wiht goal line it works the ball is either in or out, but with fouls, hand balls, offsides there is not a straight decision. Also you would have to do it for every decision, how unfair would it be if you conceded a free kick given via video but that came from an incorrect throw in decision.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

The only realistic argument against is the "it takes time".

Well, if the BBC and ITV can show multi-angle replays on our TV screens at home within one or two seconds of the incident then surely the referee can be shown the same pistures on the screen in the stadium at the same time.
Result: correct decision made by the match official on the pitch within 10 seconds of the disputed incident.

Right, that's that objection out of the way, so now, FIFA/FA/whoever, what's left for you to object to.
Oh yes, that's right. Absolutely nothing.

So, now what are you so scared of? Getting it right?
And why does getting the right decision frighten you?

Rugger does it, so why not you?

Answers only on a postcard, please, in case the silence deafens me.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

*pictures, not 'pistures'
(Sorry, missed that typo before I published it, and am suitably chastising myself.)

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Any reason given by the Irish FA - that would be Northern Irish I take it - and the Welsh FA voted down this proposal. Its a ridiculous decision not introduce some form of technology, for example a video ref like in rugby. The naysayers in charge of football are only delaying the inevitable, sooner or later video technology will be used.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Sepp Blatter needs to be voted out his office and his assistants, i cant understand why they wouldnt allow technology. Technology will eliminate cheating by some other officials

| complain about this comment

comment by gc (U1657902)

posted Mar 6, 2010

I'll never understand. Association football is a great game and the officiating should take a back-burner to the action.
Sounds like a case of FIFA Yes Men doing what they are told. I'm sick of disallowed goals, dodgy penalties and red cards that tip the balance of a great fixture because of poor officiating. Similar systems work well in tennis, gridiron football, rugby, cricket...
This reminds me of the forsight the FA showed in 1955 keeping Chelsea out of the European Cup because it was a foreign fad that would never catch on.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

How can they say no technology when the greatest footballer of my generation (Zidane) was caught out with it.

Secondly in that same world cup a team had a defender sent off for handling on the line to prevent a goal. The ref nor linesman saw and video evidence was used.

Thirdly what about when Russia had a man sent off against Germany (Ithink) in the last euro cup and then it was rescinded after it was shown to be not just a fair tackle but a dive. Consequently nothing happened to the diver.

The rules of football are in disrepute. If you tell your team to play dirty but not be seen by the officials but then get caught out by video evidence you would feel robbed.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

The game is run by idiots. How on earth can you say the door is closed to technology in 2010?!!

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

No-one has given a good reason for this decision. I can't even think whose pocket the IFAB and FIFA must be in this time. Who benefits? No, they're not bent, they're just stupid.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Question.
Can the English FA act independantly of FIFA and install goal line technology?
If they could, and the big clubs agree (which I think they might just do so as it is in their interest) why not just go ahead. Set a precedent, install and use.
After all, it is not that expensive and is a one off payment (other than routine maintenance).
Once proved successful, which it would no doubt be, other European Football associations might just follow suit, then FIFA would be left with no alternative but to follow suit.
Or am I being a bit naive? :-)

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Despite IFAB turning this down (mainly down to the Welsh, Irish and FIFA) there is nothing, absolutely nothing to stop The FA and Scottish FA introducing this on their own... there isn't anything stopping UEFA introducing this.

I cannot see why they should turn it down though. Surely it would be cheaper and more reliable to have a camera on a goalpost, and a little chip inside a ball, than having two people stood behind a net, getting whelted with a ball everytime a player misses.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

I can't believe the decision. I think it's only good for football, but I can at least see the first point. It happened to a small degree when rugby first introduced it as a lot of ref's "went upstairs" just to make sure. But as time went on and confidence of the referee and more importantly the players improved, the game actually flowed a bit better and referee decisions were respected further. That can only be a good thing. Thats all, except for

Tigercity - that is cynical as ten. But possible...

Czechmate, there's at least a minutes worth of mouthing off at the referee about a descision anyway. In the time it takes for the ref to calm it all down they could have gone upstairs to the TV ref, got the right decision and restarted the game. Twice.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Unbelievable that the debate has gone on this long and it still isn't resolved in my mind. Decisions in football can cripple a club these days, promotion and demotion from leagues can have huge effects on the clubs. So having a correct decision to put the right teams in the right leagues surely must be worthwhile?

If they gave the teams a limited amount of requests to see the video replay, the game would not need to stop too frequently. If the referee had the last word on whether it went to the video, then abuse of the system could be lessened too.

I really don't understand why at the very least, goal line technology isn't introduced. There have been some terrible decisions about clear goals in recent memory, I can think of at least five off the top of my head.

Why why why, will they not accept that it is about time that it is introduced. I find it amazing they still cannot embrace it.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

tigercity
Yeah, that was cynical.
<laugh>

| complain about this comment

comment by Ross (U13815982)

posted Mar 6, 2010

It seems that football with the sport to remain in the 'dark ages'.

Bad decisions in sport and other aspects of life can have serious consequences, so any methods which seek to reduce the number of errors made surely is a no-brainer?

Fair enough, the technology will come with a fairly large price tag, but as previous posters have stated, it will restore faith in officials and allow us to enjoy the sport we all enjoy that little bit more.

| complain about this comment

comment by Andy (U3522994)

posted Mar 6, 2010

Said it before and will say it again - the people who run football simply don't care.

If they really cared they would ban cheats for months off the back of TV replays - thereby eliminating the worst enemy of the beautiful game (much worse than racism they harp on about) instantly.

Video confirmation for possible goals (nothing else) would take less time than the interuption to the game from the abuse the ref gets from the aggrieved players.

FIFA are true idiots

| complain about this comment

comment by Steve (U13669722)

posted Mar 6, 2010

This is a ridiculous decision, in 2010 no-one can make a system that's a) cheap, b) easy to implement and c) doesn't interfere too much with the game? Nonsense.

We already have TV replays, let the top flight divison in each country run TV cameras at EVERY game and make them available to officials. Recoup the costs by letting fans sign up for a season pass to watch EVERY game their team pays on-line and split the revenue with the clubs. Give each manager, oh, say two challenges in the same way American Football works. Yes, it'll hold up the play by 30 seconds but considering how much time gets wasted by players claiming to be crippled in a normal match I really don't think it'll add much extra time to the game.

Just one example, not a particularly good one I'll admit, but surely someone with time and experience can come up with a good sold workable plan?

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

remarkabledermiebutt (U13824277)

Referees are provided by FIFA (or at least they are FIFA taught), if the FA tried to implement it FIFA would take it away because it would be wasted on their refs. The SFA tried to implement post match tellow cards in 2007/2008, at which point FIFA came in and told the m to get rid of it.

In another point, FIFA and UEFA are the ultimate purveyors contradiction. They wont introduce video technology, but are happy to punish some players post match if they commit violent conduct or dive in a game (Eduardo comes to mind)?? The governing bodies are a joke, its any wonder that football isnt seen as a joke world wide.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

The use of technology to aid football referees is, as someone else has already said, such a no-brainer that I can barely be bothered to comment. It's cheap and would hold up the game far less time than all the current protests after an incident when half a dozen players, 30,000 spectators, plus millions of TV viewers have clearly seen an infringement. What is far more interesting is the hidden agenda behind the constant rejection of the use of technology. What on earth is going on?

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

I think technology would be OK for the black and white decisions such as whether the ball has crossed the line but I don't think replays should be used for every disputed decision such as did the player dive or not as the pictures are generally inconclusive e.g. Eduardo incident.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Once again they come up with a completely mad decision. How can a sport where so much money is involved continue to be decided by referees who half the time can't even keep up with play. If the broadcasters can replay an incident and give an opinion in seconds why can't the fourth official, who'd finally have something meaningful to do. This type of dinosaur attitude really starts to make me think there is something more sinister at work here. Let's just get it right. Ask how the Irish felt this year in the world cup qualifiers, Chelsea last year in the Champions League or even England against Argentina back in 1986. We have the technology let's use it.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Ari gold:
Hang on a mo!
"Referees are provided by FIFA!
Sorry mate, but they are supplied (in England for EPL and other leagues) by the FA and the English Referees Association (or whatever)
What I posted was for the FA to perhaps (if possible) to just go for it.
FIFA cannot and would not interfere with a decision made "in house" by an association of a particular country.
If they tried that, there would be such up-roar!
In fact I wish they would, then perhaps the top people in FIFA might find themselves out of a job.
Would not that be nice! :_)

| complain about this comment

comment by db (U2503720)

posted Mar 6, 2010

FIFA cannot and would not interfere with a decision made "in house" by an association of a particular country
-----------------------------
Actually they can and will, the SFA tried to implement a video panel for league games to retrospectively issue cards and check decisions. FIFA blocked it. I'm not sure what leverage they used or if it got that far but FIFA and UEFA are opposed to this and both have the power to eliminate both clubs and countries from competitions.

It doesn't matter how much fans cry this will not happen with the current administration. I agree it's a disgrace but there's really not much we can do.

The only way I could see it happening is if the refs apply the pressure. FIFA and UEFA can still have competitions without English or Scottish clubs but not without refs. It would probably take a strike from and entire continent's worth of top division referees to the get point across.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Irish clubs went against it? Why? they'd be in the World Cup with it!

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Sad to think the biggest money spinning and most popular sport in the world is to remain the most backward as well as the most open to cheating.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

tigercity is spot on I think. No other rational explanation exists.

Without decision making technology the officials always have the possibility of making game changing decisions in favour of a certain team. With decision making tech they would not be able to "adjust" things...

To much money in football to leave it to chance...

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Thank god that's the end of that one.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

The problem is that Joe Bloggs isn't going to respect referees anymore if he can make a better decision than the ref when he's watching the match at the pub after a few pints. And that's the sad fact, in football, cricket (prior to the adopting of technology) and other sports - if the broadcasters have better information than refs or umpires, so will the viewers. If I, as a casual follower of the game, could read the books and make a better decision by watching on Sky than a trained, experienced, extremely fit professional referee, there's a huge problem. Failing to address it is just going to lead to more bandaid solutions like the Respect campaign. We begrudgingly accept that players are paid huge salaries because deep down we know that we just don't have the combination of natural skill, physical fitness, and mental knowledge of the game that they have. Until referees can do their job better than we could, they're just not going to get the respect they are looking for.

| complain about this comment

comment by QPR4Me (U1749134)

posted Mar 6, 2010

Pickles91

It was the IFA who voted against it. That would the the FA that favours Northern Ireland and dislikes the Republic of Ireland with a passion!!

They, like their Welsh friends, would prefer to live in the dark ages!!

| complain about this comment

comment by Hemmers (U8558357)

posted Mar 6, 2010

There is no valid argument for not adopting such technology. Even just the provision of a video ref would be beneficial. How many miscarriages of justice have there been that were clearly obvious to fans at home, but which the ref missed because players blocked their view?

It has been used for years in rugby with no substantial impact on the flow of the game, and would keep the game much cleaner.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Yet more proof that regime change is needed at FIFA.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Lets look at this from a legal point of view. If I buy any product or avail of any service that doesn't deliver what it is meant to, then I am within my rights to a refund or credit note to the same value. If fans were to ask for their money back every time a clear goal wasn't given then they would within their rights as the rules weren't followed, therefore delivering an inferior service to that promised. The technology is there to make this a simple and unobtrusive addition to the game as well as perhaps two calls per team for a video review to clear up matters like penalty shouts, violent conduct, offside and simulation. Fifa don't care about the fans and have clearly shown this by silencing referees and now this stonewalling of any technological improvements. We have clearly seen in games such as S.Korea v Italy, Chelsea v Barcelona and Ireland V France that games have been handled to the point of disbelief unless of course they honestly belief they can do what they want because of their own commercial ambitions. The fans across the world hold the power but Blatter and co. are denying their basic consumer's rights by selling them an inferior product which like any other should be subject to Common law allowing for necessary improvements and change otherwise refunds every time the ref's get it wrong. Some legal animal must smell blood and should garner the support of the supporters clubs and fight this one. power to the people!!!

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

Apparently FIFA looked at Hawkeye and discarded it. What? They don't need Hawkeye to see if a ball crosses a white line, they need a wonderful thing called a TELEVISION REPLAY. But then again this extraordinary development has been in place since c1977 and they haven't bothered using it for 30 years, so why now?

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

I have heard, especially in the aftermath of the decision today, a constant justification for technology in football being the fact that it is used in sports such as cricket, rugby, tennis etc...

All of those games have natural breaks in the game to restart with, should there be need to consult video evidence. In those sports, the video is called in at a point where the game would stop naturally, whether it be the next delivery/serve, play the ball or scrum. The evidence can be surveyed instantly after the incident in question, and the game can restart in just the same manner as it would otherwise have done.

This is not the case with football. Take Birmingham's 'goal' today. If the referee plays on until a break in the game to then consult the video, this could take 2 or 3 minutes, there could be injuries, red cards or goals at the other end in between the incident and the review. Should it then be decided that it was a goal, those 2 or 3 minutes could not be added back on, otherwise you could end up with 60 minute halves of football.

Alternatively, the referee could stop the game at the time the ball has possibly crossed the line. Say Portsmouth hacked it clear off the line and there was a guy away 1 on 1, but the game's stopped to look at the video. The decision is no goal, how do you restart fairly?

Now, in today's game, it may not have mattered, but it would not be long before that sort of situation would occur in the last minute of a big game.

Presume Chelsea are 2-2 against Inter in the last minute of the upcoming second leg, one goal and they're through on away goals.

Chelsea think they score, in the same way Birmingham did today, but the referee needs to wait for the ball to go out before looking at the video. Inter know it went over the line, so try to keep the ball in play until the end of the match. Chelsea, knowing that the stoppage of play will mean a review and a goal, go around hacking folk down off the ball in the hope of giving away a free kick which will trigger the review.

Is that what we want?!

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

comment by LondonsFinestClub (U11217560)

If I buy any product or avail of any service that doesn't deliver what it is meant to, then I am within my rights to a refund or credit note to the same value. If fans were to ask for their money back every time a clear goal wasn't given then they would within their rights as the rules weren't followed, therefore delivering an inferior service to that promised.

============================================

Every time a player has a bad game, makes bad decisions regarding passes, shots, misses a penalty, or the manager makes a bad substitution, you reckon you should get a refund?

There is a difference between machines, which ought not to go wrong, and humans, who would seem to be programmed to do so.

Would you perhaps prefer a league where humans were replaced with robots, in the drive to weed out any errors of judgement?

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

It is many peoples honest opinion that the game has become too quick for the officials on the field to keep up with. They need technological assistance and eye in the sky of sorts to clear up contentious events. Wenger called for a quota of two calls per game per team which would slow the game down but at least it would quell bad feeling and bring a sense of justice and fair play to a game which is becoming embroiled in a series of ridiculous decisions which have seriously damaged the credibility of the game. People expect this to happen and are losing faith. It's ridiculous that up to 1 billion people can clearly see a ball cross the line, a handball, a trip, a dive or offside and yet because the Ref. and his sidekick don't, it didn't happen or did depending on the Ref's guess at best. I wonder if a fairer game is not what they want to deliver because the production line seems faulty thus delivering a faulty product...again we have right s and Blatter could be brought down on this one. It shouldn't be up to Fifa, it should be up to the lawa of the land..deliver the best service avail within your power as people have paid for that very thing.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

delayedconfusion: It's true that there are likely to be some compromises made, but in your example (for example) how is it any less fair for Portsmouth to be denied a 1-on-1 situation than it is for Birmingham to be denied a goal? I agree the game would have to change in some subtle ways, you can't just put technology in place and not change the rules to accommodate it, but there are some ways around the problems.

For example, why stop the game at all? Have an official solely for video reviews (such as in cricket and rugby) who essentially acts independently and tells the ref what he's seen. No need to stop the game unless the ref chooses to. For example, if he sees that it in fact is a goal, he tells the ref he saw the ball cross the line, and at that point the ref can either blow his whistle and award the goal, or choose to play on (which he would have to explain in his report). If he sees that it doesn't go in, he can just let the ref know that and there would be no stoppage in play at all.

| complain about this comment

posted Mar 6, 2010

When the Referee blows his whistle the game stops if the ball crosses the line, a bleep goes off in his ear, he can stop the game or if an eye in the sky ref sees an infringement etc, he can speak to the ref. as play continues and the ref, can then blow and stop play. It's quite simple and easy to implement at top level and should become part of the game. Football is a victorian game but it is much much quicker and there is more at stake.

| complain about this comment

Page 1 of 2

HINTS & TIPS

Deleting comments

You are in charge of your own space - if you see an offensive comment, you can delete it

Reasonable debate is allowed - please don't delete a comment just because you don't agree with it

If you are not sure, or feel a comment warrants further attention, you can refer it to a moderator instead