Waste of money, IMO. Why spend ?ú250,000 per ground on installing this technology when we can just send video replays to a 5th official at games? Goal-line technology won't tell us whether a player was offside, or if a player should be sent off.
Yet, the only 2 proposals that have been accepted for testing by FIFA are the Hawk-Eye and the Goalref System. I guess it's better than nothing, and at least these won't really interrupt the flow of the game.
Apparently a decision is to be made on July the 2nd by IFAB on which one to use
What the Mirror says about the proposals:
Hawk-Eye
British-designed computerised system based on the principle of triangulation, using the visual images and timing data provided by high-speed video cameras at different locations around the area of play.
The system uses six cameras to triangulate and track the ball in flight, meaning installation costs will be high.
Software calculates the ball's location for each frame by identifying the pixels that correspond to the ball through at least two cameras.
The margin of error for the system is 3.6 millimetres.
The FA and Premier League have long backed Hawk-Eye, believing it provides accurate and swift decisions within FIFA's "one-second" demand.
It would be television-friendly, giving fans at home - and in the stadium - visual "proof" of the validity of the decision, and high-speed cameras allow the ball to be tracked even if they only cross the line for a fraction of a second.
However, software can only track the ball and predict the flight path as long as 25 per cent of it is visible - no decision could be given if the ball was "buried" under a keeper's body, for example.
Goalref
A joint Danish-German project, initially pioneered by former FIFA ref Peter Mikelsen and developed in Copenhagen, which uses magnetism to determine whether the ball is over the line.
Unlike the previously-considered Cairos system, which required the chip to be inserted in the exact middle of the ball, the electronic probes are attached between the inner ball and the inside of its leather outer lining.
Sensors are installed on the inside of the posts and crossbar and send out bursts of electronic waves, based on the "Doppler Effect" you get when an ambulance or F1 car passes and the signal moves through 180 degrees.
The system means an "instantaneous" signal (quicker than one tenth of a second) would be sent to the referee when it is detected the ball has crossed the line - faster, in effect, than the assistant referee could flag for a goal.
Because a magnetic signal is used, there is no need for the ball to be in sight for a decision to be made.
GoalRef insist the system is compatible with any ball - unlike Cairos, which was an Adidas project.
Would not be great for TV - there is just a signal to the referee and other officials - but far cheaper to install than Hawk-Eye, with a mass production version already in the pipeline.
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opi...e-testing-by-Martin-Lipton-article891556.html
Yet, the only 2 proposals that have been accepted for testing by FIFA are the Hawk-Eye and the Goalref System. I guess it's better than nothing, and at least these won't really interrupt the flow of the game.
Apparently a decision is to be made on July the 2nd by IFAB on which one to use
What the Mirror says about the proposals:
Hawk-Eye
British-designed computerised system based on the principle of triangulation, using the visual images and timing data provided by high-speed video cameras at different locations around the area of play.
The system uses six cameras to triangulate and track the ball in flight, meaning installation costs will be high.
Software calculates the ball's location for each frame by identifying the pixels that correspond to the ball through at least two cameras.
The margin of error for the system is 3.6 millimetres.
The FA and Premier League have long backed Hawk-Eye, believing it provides accurate and swift decisions within FIFA's "one-second" demand.
It would be television-friendly, giving fans at home - and in the stadium - visual "proof" of the validity of the decision, and high-speed cameras allow the ball to be tracked even if they only cross the line for a fraction of a second.
However, software can only track the ball and predict the flight path as long as 25 per cent of it is visible - no decision could be given if the ball was "buried" under a keeper's body, for example.
Goalref
A joint Danish-German project, initially pioneered by former FIFA ref Peter Mikelsen and developed in Copenhagen, which uses magnetism to determine whether the ball is over the line.
Unlike the previously-considered Cairos system, which required the chip to be inserted in the exact middle of the ball, the electronic probes are attached between the inner ball and the inside of its leather outer lining.
Sensors are installed on the inside of the posts and crossbar and send out bursts of electronic waves, based on the "Doppler Effect" you get when an ambulance or F1 car passes and the signal moves through 180 degrees.
The system means an "instantaneous" signal (quicker than one tenth of a second) would be sent to the referee when it is detected the ball has crossed the line - faster, in effect, than the assistant referee could flag for a goal.
Because a magnetic signal is used, there is no need for the ball to be in sight for a decision to be made.
GoalRef insist the system is compatible with any ball - unlike Cairos, which was an Adidas project.
Would not be great for TV - there is just a signal to the referee and other officials - but far cheaper to install than Hawk-Eye, with a mass production version already in the pipeline.
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opi...e-testing-by-Martin-Lipton-article891556.html
Last edited: