Weekend Football 15th/16th/17th September

[Hoop Blah]

Once it's in for off-sides i'll be satisfied.

If they want to discourage handballs and diving then punish after the game using video evidence not during.

We'll have to change the off-side law again for that to work though.

I'm largely against the use of technology because football is all about the fluidity of the game and every other sport that uses technology has lost some of it's fluidity (if it had any to begin with).

An instant goal line signal would have a benefit yes, but I'm not sure it's that great, and I'd accept that it may be something that should be introduced BUT, like JMW, I think it will just open door to other 'advancements' that will ultimately ruin the game for me.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

I'm violently against anything that involves replays or potentially "winding" the game back. That would fundamentally change the game and not for the better.

Instant notification of "line" decisions would be great, but that's where it has to stop.

Won't stop with goal line technology though.....which is why I'm dead opposed to goal line technology.

In fact, we don't even have it, and already you hear mention of using video tech for checking handballs or pens.


something that automatically gives a goal if the ball crosses the line (chip in ball) is ok i suppose but even Hawkeye would be the thin end of the wedge as in involves some sort of replay

Only from the TV companies. they have a massive vested interest in ensuring that games have to be televised.

[TBM]

An instant goal line signal would have a benefit yes, but I'm not sure it's that great, and I'd accept that it may be something that should be introduced BUT, like JMW, I think it will just open door to other 'advancements' that will ultimately ruin the game for me.

Exactly - this is what i've been saying, although Ian Royal disagrees!

[Alexander Litvinenko]

It's a big step between technology for "line" decisions - which are scientific and indisputable - and other decisions like offside which are much more subjective and depend on so many different factors, including opinion.

Fr me the line in the sand is whether the game gets stopped or "rewound".

[cmonurz]

It's a big step between technology for "line" decisions - which are scientific and indisputable - and other decisions like offside which are much more subjective and depend on so many different factors, including opinion.

Fr me the line in the sand is whether the game gets stopped or "rewound".

This for me. The technology should simply indicate if a goal has been scored, i.e. the referee gets the same signal whether it's a contentious on/over-the-line decision, or a Tony Yeboah thunder-blaster that breaks the net.

But fears it might go further should not be reason not to bring in a piece of technology that can only make the game fairer.

[creative_username_1]

Again, test it out somewhere and see what works best. Could be any random league anywhere, worldwide

[ZacNaloen]

It's a big step between technology for "line" decisions - which are scientific and indisputable - and other decisions like offside which are much more subjective and depend on so many different factors, including opinion.

Fr me the line in the sand is whether the game gets stopped or "rewound".

A pure logic machine would be far more capable of resolving an offside decision than a human.

[Hoop Blah]

It's a big step between technology for "line" decisions - which are scientific and indisputable - and other decisions like offside which are much more subjective and depend on so many different factors, including opinion.

Fr me the line in the sand is whether the game gets stopped or "rewound".

A pure logic machine would be far more capable of resolving an offside decision than a human.

Genuine question....How would a machine be able to decide if a player was seeking to gain an advantage and get involved in specific phase of play or if he was passively standing in an offside position but not engaging in play?

That's the state of the law these days and the human brain struggles to compute it all let alone a machine.

[Hoop Blah]

Only from the TV companies. they have a massive vested interest in ensuring that games have to be televised.

I don't think I've ever spoken to a TV company, I don't think one posts on here and I'm 99% sure I don't have any on Facebook or my Twitter feed, so how come I'm always hearing and seeing calls for video replays?

[Platypuss]

It's a big step between technology for "line" decisions - which are scientific and indisputable - and other decisions like offside which are much more subjective and depend on so many different factors, including opinion.

Fr me the line in the sand is whether the game gets stopped or "rewound".

A pure logic machine would be far more capable of resolving an offside decision than a human.

Genuine question....How would a machine be able to decide if a player was seeking to gain an advantage and get involved in specific phase of play or if he was passively standing in an offside position but not engaging in play?

That's the state of the law these days and the human brain struggles to compute it all let alone a machine.

Just having a simple "receiving attacker in offside position or not when ball played" indicator would be a great advance.
IMO most "wrong" offside decisions stem from that, not the active/inactive part of offside.

[Hoop Blah]

Not sure I'd agree that the majority of 'iffy' decisions are the player being in an on or off side position, but it could be, I've not thought too hard about it.

Assuming that you're right, I guess the machine would need to be able to deal with multiple players receiving the ball in the same phase of play and indicating both players offside status for the lino/video ref to be able to make an accurate decision.

It still seems to be far too often about an opinion of if the player is gaining an advantage and I'm not not the added signal would help to clear up that decision (logically it should, but when you're running the line you've got to watch two parts of the pitch already, having a third factor seems to me to be an over complication).

[ZacNaloen]

If they have an indicator the lino doesn't need to watch the line or even the player playing the ball. All he needs to decide is whether the player offisde is seeking an advantage from his position.

If he's not, he doesn't flag.

[ZacNaloen]

and FTR, I don't know how prozone works, but mcdermott regularly refers to the prozone analysts telling him who was offside and who wasn't during the game so that information is obviously available live. It seems to me it would be trivial technically (but not cheap) to implement a notification of an offside event into referees communication system. Whether by a beeper or a signal on the linos flag. it doesn't eliminate the human element. But it does reduce what they have to think about.

[Hoop Blah]

If they have an indicator the lino doesn't need to watch the line or even the player playing the ball. All he needs to decide is whether the player offisde is seeking an advantage from his position.

If he's not, he doesn't flag.

True, unless he's also keeping that in mind to ascertain when/if they're looking to gain an advantage.

As for the ProZone, I don't know if that's taken by who was in off-side positions or who was given as offside. Some of these stats are generated by manual review/analysis of the video or live action and so I have my doubts over their accuracy (see the lack of Opta assist from the Spurs game).

[TBM]

ProZone can track how far a player has run in a game etc......so i think its more in-depth than you think

[Hoop Blah]

ProZone can track how far a player has run in a game etc......so i think its more in-depth than you think

No, I'm aware of that, I'm just not sure it actually tells them who was offside and how often considering its a matter of opinion in an officials head.

I realise there is a difference between it being given and a player being goalscorer of the second last defender, but I'm guessing that the stats that are being alluded to are more from the Opta/internal video analysis team and not from ProZone. Obviously I'm guessing to an extent though as I've never played with ProZone and I've not seem or heard the quotes.

[weybridgewanderer]

for me using technology for some decisions but not others is unfair

suppose we clear a ball from off the line, but the goal is given because technology says the ball was over the line, then later in the game we an opponent prevents the ball cross the line with his arm but the ref things it hit his shoulder so does not give the penalty

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

for me using technology for some decisions but not others is unfair

to re-use an argument from earlier, if technology can remove 25% of mistakes made, how is preferring having 0% removed a better option than removing 25%?


Is it unfair in cricket that technology can rule on LBW decisions, be can't tell you if a batsman got an edge to a ball?

[Ian Royal]

You've got great debating skills Ian

Let's just leave it if you can't reply with sense

All your arguments have already been blown at out the water (including by me) and yet you persisted. You're the one who is failing to debate with rational arguments. And in the face of that I point out what a crap argument you're making with hyperbole because rational debating has got nowhere.

[Ian Royal]

I'm violently against anything that involves replays or potentially "winding" the game back. That would fundamentally change the game and not for the better.

Instant notification of "line" decisions would be great, but that's where it has to stop.

Won't stop with goal line technology though.....which is why I'm dead opposed to goal line technology.

In fact, we don't even have it, and already you hear mention of using video tech for checking handballs or pens.


something that automatically gives a goal if the ball crosses the line (chip in ball) is ok i suppose but even Hawkeye would be the thin end of the wedge as in involves some sort of replay

Why. Why does adding something instantaneous on the basis that it is instantaneous mean that you'll then add something which isn't. It's utterly utterly flawed as a reason for not installing something instantaneous.