• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Technology And Refereeing

C

COYS

Allan Nielsen
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
 
Last edited:
nah do not need it, decesions even themselves out over the course of the season








just fudging with yer of course we do bring the fudger in
 
I think we need it. a cam on the post, on the inside. There are images which deceive the eye, either showing the ball did go in or didnt from last night's game. The point is the various angles are inconclusive. A cam on either post and a wide angle one on the underside of the crossbar should do it!

Actually that magnet thing sounds good. But no one is convinced as much as seeing it for themselves.
 
diego_maradona said:
I think we need it. a cam on the post, on the inside. There are images which deceive the eye, either showing the ball did go in or didnt from last night's game. The point is the various angles are inconclusive. A cam on either post and a wide angle one on the underside of the crossbar should do it!

Actually that magnet thing sounds good. But no one is convinced as much as seeing it for themselves.
Click to expand...

That was one proposal, called the Goalminder, but was rejected because of fears it might interrupt the flow of the game due to the fact you have to watch replays.
 
I was less bothered about the goal, and more bothered about having to sit/listen/read through 3 more days of this tired old debate again!!!!

(aimed at media, not the OP!)
 
The Monkey said:
I was less bothered about the goal, and more bothered about having to sit/listen/read through 3 more days of this tired old debate again!!!!

(aimed at media, not the OP!)
Click to expand...

At least on July the 2nd we won't need to sit through this any more.
 
GoalRef has too much potential for fraudulent use, imo. I wouldn't trust FIFA with a pack if gum, let alone an unverifiable system that only communicates to the referees and no one else. Prefer the first one.
 
My vote goes to Hawk Eye. Fantastic tool which has avanced Tennis and Cricket a good 20 years and taken the sport much further.

Reviews to be done via TV ref who informs the main ref only. No public screenings on thr stadium screens to avoid conflict - much like it is curently. Only seen by TV viewers, etx
 
ArcspacE said:
My vote goes to Hawk Eye. Fantastic tool which has avanced Tennis and Cricket a good 20 years and taken the sport much further.

Reviews to be done via TV ref who informs the main ref only. No public screenings on thr stadium screens to avoid conflict - much like it is curently. Only seen by TV viewers, etx
Click to expand...

You, my friend, have inspired me to add a poll.

EDIT: Don't know how ](*,)
EDIT 2: Got it.
 
Last edited:
One issue I've always thought about with something like video replays or Hawk Eye are the stoppages. It's all well and good if the ball naturally stops. But what if the ball bounced off the crossbar, over the line but not clearly enough for the ref to see, the other team breaks out into an attack. When do you stop the game? Football doesn't always have natural stoppages, the game can go on forever. If we leave that up to the referee's discretion, there's still as much of a human error issue.

The Goalref idea has always seemed best to me.
 
tommysvr said:
One issue I've always thought about with something like video replays or Hawk Eye are the stoppages. It's all well and good if the ball naturally stops. But what if the ball bounced off the crossbar, over the line but not clearly enough for the ref to see, the other team breaks out into an attack. When do you stop the game? Football doesn't always have natural stoppages, the game can go on forever. If we leave that up to the referee's discretion, there's still as much of a human error issue.

The Goalref idea has always seemed best to me.
Click to expand...

It sends some form of signal to the ref or something
 
What does NEITHER mean - nothing at all, or use Sky TV?

This whole "within a second" thing is flimflam

Within 30 seconds is absolutely fine
 
Hawk eye once people are used could be used for offside decisions as well. The megnetic one only would work for goal line incidents.
 
id choose the cheapest and easiest thing to implement - a man in a room somewhere in the stadium watching the game on tv connected to ref via microphopne/ear-piece

simple
 
billyiddo said:
id choose the cheapest and easiest thing to implement - a man in a room somewhere in the stadium watching the game on tv connected to ref via microphopne/ear-piece

simple
Click to expand...

That's what I suggested, but they don't want it
 
None of the above options. I want no goal line technology and competent officials. Why have officials at all if you're taking decision making away from them? So I want "nothing" or "let a bloke in the TV control room ref the game as well" options added.


Take the argument for technology a step further, we already have the technology to do away with refs and linos already, why not just have a bloke in the middle who doles out red and yellow cards on the instructions of a bloke in charge of a bank of monitors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back