An impromptu conversation

by CPC on Aug 26, 2010 10:21 PM BST

Sepp Blatter, misses the mark...again.

Recently, I traded emails with another blogger, David Hammons of The United Religion blog. The emails started off innocently enough, but it turned into a really good discussion about goal line video technology and some of the ways it could be implemented. I thought The Busby Babe would enjoy reading it, so here it is, after the jump:

I mentioned that I'd come across his site in my Google Reader and pointed him over here. I also told him I really like the SBNation platform and that I was over at Rock M Nation, Mizzou's blog alot.

David:

With that said, did you go to the Manchester United / KC Wizards match on Tour 2010? .... Awful to say the least. Sat behind the goal where the controversial goal was scored, and it was never a goal, but until video technology is introduced where will continue to have calls such as that.

Leghumpingjihadkiller:

The video technology is there...Sepp Blatter doesn't want it and I think FIFA is afraid that if they institute it, the costs burden on some lower division teams may be too much. I'm not sure why the individual leagues don't institute it on their own though...the Premier League could easily mandate and subsidize the teams to install the cameras and put a TV on the sideline, near the benches and the 4th official can review the goal.

David:

Of course the technology is there, and the implementation would go against everything that FIFA has stood for throughout this debate, so I cannot see it happening anytime soon. I mean, look how many teams were screwed in the WC this summer!? Countless.
FIFA needs to take COMPLETE ownership of this, because they are the governing body and can "enforce" this on all of the "top" leagues and Champions League matches.
I do agree that the initial cost would be substantial, and most leagues / teams could not afford it, but if you think of the amount of money that is being lost by them not having it - it will more than likely equal itself out.
Say if a controversial decision went the wrong in the Championship play-off final between Blackpool and Cardiff when the pot for the winner of this third place match was a mere 90m .

Leghumpingjihadkiller:

FIFA will soon grow tired of having the stigma of the worst officiating. It may take waiting on Sepp Blatter to leave, but it will happen. I totally agree that this is FIFA's mess, but I think the FA and the Premier League could use this as an opportunity to be an example to the rest of the world and require the broadcasters (ESPN and Sky) to install 2 cameras at an appropriate height squarely on the goal lines at both ends of the pitch and a feed controlled by the producer, who is in communication with an official from the Premier League. They could make it like the NHL, where an official in Toronto reviews all the plays. The official could be at Premier League HQ watching all the matches live (with help, of course) and direct Sky on what to show the 4th official. Sky and ESPN already mount cameras there anyhow for the big matches. I think if the EPL took that step, other leagues would take notice and force FIFA's hand.

David:

I associate FIFA with Major League Baseball and the whole "Technology Debate" to Pete Rose. Rose won't get into the Hall of Fame until Selig is out, and technology won't get in until Blatter is out. II made the point of what hockey does in one of my blogposts, but I have been saying it all along as well. Have ONE person sit behind or on the side of the goal and if the ball has / could have crossed the line then he buzzes a bell into the referee's ear piece - which signifies that technology is already in the game and being used by the officials! Simple Solution! Cost is having two extra officials, so instead of four you have six for each sanctioned match .

Leghumpingjihadkiller:

We agree the video technology is forthcoming, we just disagree about the details. That's good debatin' there. It's all the better since we're on the same side (in terms of soccer, anyhow).

What do you guys think? I'm sure it's been discussed before and I'm sure it will continue to be discussed. Don't have an account? Click here to create an account and join the discussion!

Also, sure to check out David's blog, The United Religion, which by the way, had United's European schedule up before UEFA did.

This FanPost represents the view of the member who posts it and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Busby Babe or SB Nation.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm on the fence

On one hand it’d be nice to get goal calls correct 100% of the time, on the other I don’t want ANYTHING that disrupts the flow of the game, call me a purist but it’s the only sport that flows continuously.

If they could implement it and have real time decisions then sure I’m all for it, but the LAST thing I want is goal reviews ala the NHL or NFL. I know they played around with using a further two assistant referees on the goal lines and I’m all for that’s 4 sets of eyes that are now looking at it instead of 2. Even with goal line technology the calls aren’t going to be correct 100% of the time. Take the NHL for example, they have plenty of cameras trained on the ice, take the time to review it and sometimes get the call wrong. They’re even playing with an idea of putting a line behind the goal line to ensure the entire puck has crossed the line, which is another problem that our beloved sport faces.

On top of that sometimes mistakes are made it happens, and yeah it sucks but hey players make mistakes that affect the game so I don’t see why it’s any different when an official makes one. I realize it is different but that’s sort of what makes our sport special.

That’s my 2 cents anyhow. Oh and Sepp Blatter sucks but I get the feeling Platini is going to be next in line and in my eyes he’s actually worse than Blatter.

Check out my pic a day for a year project-
Life Through My Lens

by ChillMike on Aug 27, 2010 3:18 AM BST reply actions

I sort of agree

For one thing, video reviews probably would be treated the same way as an injury on the pitch – everyone takes a water break and the ref just adds a couple more minutes to stoppage time.

If there was clear evidence having the two goal line refs actually improves the game, I’m all for that rather than video review. But recent headlines have indicated that they still miss penalties and corner vs. goal kick decisions. I’m not sure if they’ve had a wrongful goal / not goal yet with the new system.

I don’t mind mistakes happening either, but I’d prefer them to be the sort of mistakes that theoretically a human could have avoided. For example, in the NFL the video technology is so good that the tv audience can tell to the 1/8" or so whether or not a guy stepped on a line. There’s no way a ref could have spotted that from a reasonable position, so I’m okay with not using video review for that sort of thing. In footy, I would prefer to have video technology correct things where the ref or linesmen could have been in correct position. Debating whether all of the ball crossed all of the line down to the millimeter is a little much for me, especially since it would completely slow the game down while the video ref analyzes the shot from 15 angles. But when the video shows clearly that the ball is multiple inches over the line, it wouldn’t distract much from the game to stop and make sure we get it right. Theoretically the linesmen should be able to see that, especially if we do have two goal line linesmen as well.

by johnnycougar on Aug 27, 2010 5:37 PM BST up reply actions

Maybe I am way out to lunch on this

but couldn’t you just put some tiny computer chips in the ball with sensors in the goal posts and if the whole of the ball crosses the whole of the line the Ref could be notified through some sort of mechanism whether it be a light on his watch or a vibrating or something? I mean I know it wouldn’t work at all levels of the game as some leagues and teams wouldn’t be able to afford it but so what. The top leagues get the top officials and they should get the top technology as well. World Cups and Euros and CLs are too important to let mistakes as bad as the one in the England Germany game happen.

"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor

by Section 312 on Aug 27, 2010 6:51 PM BST up reply actions

They have tried EXACTLY what you are suggesting

Tests have shown that it’s not reliable enough. I’m sure I read something about that somewhere, have to look it up. Well, here is a study from 2006 indicating it mostly works but of course the call is “still up to the ref.” It does also sound expensive to operate, with multiple radio antennas needing to be built for each stadium.

by johnnycougar on Aug 27, 2010 7:50 PM BST up reply actions

I would think that technology

has advanced since 2005 to the point where it might be more feasible at this point. I mean all you would need to some sort of scanning system in the goal posts themselves that react to something in or on the ball. I am not sure why you would need radio antennas it seems like that is overly complicating the situation.

by Section 312 on Aug 27, 2010 8:37 PM BST up reply actions

Isn't that system overcomplicating it, too?

When TV cameras are already set up on the line for the same purpose?

If you want to get technical, if you put the chip in the center of the ball, then to find out if it entirely crossed the line, would require sensors behind the posts. So you’re either mounting the sensors on nets that move around, or your altering the goal post to accommodate the sensors.

But no matter what, you’re increasing the cost burden to do all of this. Hence why I stand behind using TV cameras and having a human reviewing the play.

L.U.H.G: Take our club back!

by CPC on Aug 27, 2010 8:54 PM BST up reply actions

OK but that game the other day

when Stoke thought they had scored. I have seen the replays several times and I am still not 100% sure that the whole of the ball crossed the whole of the line.

I don’t see how having a couple sensors in the posts themselves is over complicating things. You wouldn’t have to mount them behind the line. Just on the line and calibrate them to understand when the whole of the ball has crossed the whole of the line.

To be honest I don’t think it really matters how complicated it is anyway. All that matters is that these calls are made correctly. It’s 2010 FFS and we shouldn’t still be dealing with issues as simple as did the ball cross the line.

by Section 312 on Aug 27, 2010 9:38 PM BST up reply actions

That's the thing though

If the sensor is in the middle of the ball the goal post sensors would trip as soon as the middle of the ball went passed. You’d have to have sensors exactly half a ball length passed the posts. Plus now you’re adding electronics to something that gets repeatedly kicked hard. Do you remember Fox’s Fast track? That shit went glitchy all the time.

Check out my pic a day for a year project-
Life Through My Lens

by ChillMike on Aug 27, 2010 11:35 PM BST up reply actions

That was 15 years ago

and as I said you only have to calibrate the sensors to understand when the whole of the ball crossed the line. I mean the ball’s are a standard size correct? As long as the computer knows that the chip has to be X amount across the line for the whole ball to be across plus whatever the width of the line is behind the sensor it can figure out of the whole ball crossed the line.

by Section 312 on Aug 28, 2010 12:16 AM BST up reply actions

I still think it's all about video

not chips. The game doesn’t even have to stop, just get the 4th official to check it and signal to the ref if it has. Just let the game continue untill the ball is out of play. If a goal is scored at the other end and it has to be scrapped, so be it in my veiw. As long as we get the correct descision!

by Sweet science on Aug 28, 2010 11:02 AM BST reply actions