Goal line technology for 2012-13 season

Paparazzo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/19/premier-league-goalline-technology

The new Premier League season is likely to be the last to feature goalline controversies after its chief executive Richard Scudamore said he was hopeful technology could be introduced in time for the 2012-13 campaign.

Writing in the Premier League's new review of the season, which will be distributed to MPs and peers on Wednesday, Scudamore vows to use the Premier League's position "to deliver progress – increasing standards on and off the pitch". The International Football Association Board, which governs the laws of the game and is split equally between representatives from the home nations and Fifa, has said that it will continue trials of goalline technology.

"The whole point of the game is about scoring goals. Players strain every sinew to either create or deny them, fans shout themselves hoarse exhorting their teams to score them, managers' and players' careers can be defined by them," Scudamore writes. "The technology is available, it is the fairness that is important and the Premier League would introduce it tomorrow if it could. Now Fifa is constructively engaged we are hopeful the 2012-13 season is a realistic aim."

The Fifa president, Sepp Blatter, a long-time opponent of the introduction of technology, was forced to reconsider that position in the wake of several controversies during the 2010 World Cup, including Frank Lampard's "ghost goal" against Germany.

Scudamore also sets out the Premier League's position before the expected debate on the game's governance that will follow the publication shortly of a culture, media and sport select committee report into football's future. He claims the inquiry, now unlikely to deliver its report until the week after next due to the committee's involvement in the phone hacking affair, has "provided an overall backdrop of negativity".

The inquiry heard evidence from a succession of witnesses, including former FA chairman Lord Triesman and former chief executive Ian Watmore, who addressed the dysfunctional relationship between the FA and the Premier League.

"Some would have it that football in England is somehow broken, irreparably damaged and in need of saving," Scudamore writes. "That is an analysis of the game to which I cannot subscribe."

He says there are "many more reasons to be upbeat than downcast" and hails the Premier League as having had "another fantastic year". But he adds that "in other areas of the game it is hard to deny that it hasn't been a frustrating year", singling out England's humiliation in South Africa and the failed 2018 World Cup bid.

"Clearly, and by its own admission, the FA needs to address some structural issues that are no secret, as well as create a focus that means they can improve in their key areas of responsibility – the national teams, coach development and grassroots investment," Scudamore writes.

"However, the Premier League is a crucial part of the association of interests that engage and we have a duty to constructively engage with and support the processes already under way aimed at creating an organisation that can represent the best of English football at every level."

About time, there's no real reason why this isn't in use. Although, looks like the reason it's being brought in is purely to annoy FIFA.

Gavin "shels"

Paparazzo wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/19/premier-league-goalline-technology

About time, there's no real reason why this isn't in use.

Yes there is, most clubs/football associations wouldn't be able to afford it and well tonnes of stadiums would be able to faciliate it tbh.

Fr Tod Umptious

Gavin shels wrote: »

Yes there is, most clubs/football associations wouldn't be able to afford it and well tonnes of stadiums would be able to faciliate it tbh.

Not every tennis club in the world has hawkeye either but that does not stop them using it in major tournaments.

TheBigLebowski

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not every tennis club in the world has hawkeye either but that does not stop them using it in major tournaments.

And that's the beauty of football - it's not tennis.

Fr Tod Umptious

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

And that's the beauty of football - it's not tennis.

What's your point, or do you actually have one ?

KombuchaMshroom

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not every tennis club in the world has hawkeye either but that does not stop them using it in major tournaments.

Exactly, i hate FIFA's argument that since not every single level of the game can have goal line technology none should.
Nobody playing the sunday league equivalent in rugby, tennis, cricket etc. have access to what the guys at the top have and thats because sunday league matches don't have potentially millions riding on them.

Ridiculously frustrating when 5 seconds after an incident occours everyone watching knows what the correct ruling should be bar the man in charge. Why not take advantage of technology thats pretty much already in place.

TheBigLebowski

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What's your point, or do you actually have one ?

I have two points.

Point A: Tennis is shite

Point B: The beauty of football is that the rules/structure/equipment of the game is the same the world over. Whether rich or poor, whether you are playing on a dirt field in the ethiopian desert, whether you are playing in the under 7s down in the phoenix park - all you need is a referee, goals, lines and a football. In my opinion the further the game at the highest level goes away from this, the more of it's soul it loses.

amacachi

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I have two points.

Point A: Tennis is shite

Point B: The beauty of football is that the rules/structure/equipment of the game is the same the world over. Whether rich or poor, whether you are playing on a dirt field in the ethiopian desert, whether you are playing in the under 7s down in the phoenix park - all you need is a referee, goals, lines and a football. In my opinion the further the game at the highest level goes away from this, the more of it's soul it loses.

Aye, lovely pair of jumpers at each end of PL stadia across England.

Superbus

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I have two points.

Point A: Tennis is shite

Point B: The beauty of football is that the rules/structure/equipment of the game is the same the world over. Whether rich or poor, whether you are playing on a dirt field in the ethiopian desert, whether you are playing in the under 7s down in the phoenix park - all you need is a referee, goals, lines and a football. In my opinion the further the game at the highest level goes away from this, the more of it's soul it loses.

Is that actually what you think, or is it what Fifa WANTS you to think?

Think for yourself, man! It's all a conspiracy!

Gavin "shels"

I can see a trend that's going to develop in this thread tbh.

Fr Tod Umptious

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I have two points.

Point A: Tennis is shite.

Whether it is or not has nothing to do with the topic.

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Point B: The beauty of football is that the rules/structure/equipment of the game is the same the world over. Whether rich or poor, whether you are playing on a dirt field in the ethiopian desert, whether you are playing in the under 7s down in the phoenix park - all you need is a referee, goals, lines and a football. In my opinion the further the game at the highest level goes away from this, the more of it's soul it loses.

But they are not.

That surface in Old Trafford is a hell of a lot better than the bumphy sloping to one side pitch I play on every weekend.

Do you not think football and pro sports in general have not lost their soul yaers ago.

If you want to stay semenital and nostalgic go ahead and enjoy the games you play in, but at the highest level where millions are involved the use of technology actually restores some sense of confidence in the game and those who run it, rather than dimisnishes it.

I'd say top flight football may actually get some of it's soul back if it used something that helped the game be played in a fairer fashion.

Royale with Cheese

The beauty of football is that structure is the same the world over? Bullshít. Are there 3 officials for every amateur game out there? Didn't think so. It makes sense, bring it in where it can be accommodated.

No other sport that uses proper technology like video replays or hawkeye (rugby, tennis, cricket off the top of my head) ever came out with the same the world over argument, mainly because it's a load of shíte. I don't know where it came from or why it was ever taken seriously.

S.M.B.

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I have two points.

Point A: Tennis is shite

Point B: The beauty of football is that the rules/structure/equipment of the game is the same the world over. Whether rich or poor, whether you are playing on a dirt field in the ethiopian desert, whether you are playing in the under 7s down in the phoenix park - all you need is a referee, goals, lines and a football.......

and nets and a pristine surface and 2-4 assistant referees and microphones for all officials and.........

Paully D

Good news.

Wrong decisions are costing clubs millions of pounds along with progression in cups and possibly even silverware.

Something needs to change and this is a step in the right direction.

Guy:Incognito

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Point B: The beauty of football is that the rules/structure/equipment of the game is the same the world over. Whether rich or poor, whether you are playing on a dirt field in the ethiopian desert, .

Really? Playing in a dirt field has all the same equipemnt as the Nou Camp? Proper goals, nets, refs & linesman, 4th official, €300 boots, €200 balls?

EDIT: Dammit others got there first.

Gavin "shels"

Paully D wrote: »

Something needs to change and this is a step in the right direction.

The only step this shows is how technology is actually killing the game of football more and more.

Paully D

Gavin shels wrote: »

The only step this shows is how technology is actually killing the game of football more and more.

No it's not killing the game at all. I'm a massive critic of the modern game but this is an excellent decision.

As I said, wrong decisions such as allowing/disallowing goals are costing clubs in many different areas.

Hopefully this is the first of many steps which will eventually lead to the introduction of more technology into the game to ensure that the correct decisions are made.

We simply can't rely on people taking guesses any more in this day and age which is what happens for the majority of ''was it over the line?'' decisions.

Pro. F

Gavin shels wrote: »

The only step this shows is how technology is actually killing the game of football more and more.

So have you got any evidence of how technology has harmed the game so far?

Edit: This is great news that the FA are looking to lead the way on this. Hopefully it will be only the start and will soon lead on to proper enforcement of the rules and eradicating of the ridiculous amount of poor decisions, diving and feigning injury that are the real blight on the sport. (Eh... the real blight aside from all the corruption that is)

Gavin "shels"

Paully D wrote: »

Hopefully this is the first of many steps which will eventually lead to the introduction of more technology into the game to ensure that the correct decisions are made.

Granted wrong decisions are made, but that's part of the game, talking points about the game. Grin and bare it, and rant about it for years afterwards.

Pro. F wrote: »

So have you got any evidence of how technology has harmed the game so far?

TV for example, you don't see 20,000 crammed into Tolka Park for Drumcondra -v- Shamrock Rovers anyway. The lessier teams in England can't fill their stadiums, most likely down to people preferring to reside in their local watching it.

If all this technology is brought in, it will end up being like Rugby where every decision for a goal is questioned, every offside if challenged, etc...

Paully D

Gavin shels wrote: »

Granted wrong decisions are made, but that's part of the game, talking points about the game. Grin and bare it, and rant about it for years afterwards.

That's an attitude I just can't agree with. Too many wrong decisions are made and it's got to the stage now where the technology is available and it just simply isn't good enough to say ''ah sure that's the way it goes''.

It would be nice to discuss a game of football without having to refer to the numerous wrong decisions that ruin games on a weekly basis. Hopefully in years to come teams won't have to worry about being cost millions of pounds, getting knocked out of tournaments early or even being cost silverware by wrong decisions that could have been easily avoided with the use of technology.

Like I said before, it's a step in the right direction.

Soby

Gavin shels wrote: »

Granted wrong decisions are made, but that's part of the game, talking points about the game. Grin and bare it, and rant about it for years afterwards.



TV for example, you don't see 20,000 crammed into Tolka Park for Drumcondra -v- Shamrock Rovers anyway. The lessier teams in England can't fill their stadiums, most likely down to people preferring to reside in their local watching it.

If all this technology is brought in, it will end up being like Rugby where every decision for a goal is questioned, every offside if challenged, etc...

When its come the difference between who gets relegated,who wins the title,the Champions League it needs to happen.To much is at stake to just shrug it off and say meh mistakes happen thats part of football.

TheBigLebowski

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Really? Playing in a dirt field has all the same equipemnt as the Nou Camp? Proper goals, nets, refs & linesman, 4th official, €300 boots, €200 balls?

EDIT: Dammit others got there first.

I guess there's some things the sky sports generation will never get...

Guy:Incognito

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I guess there's some things the sky sports generation will never get...

Yep, looks just like a cL final.

Plus "skysports generation"? Maybe your right, it was all new fangled bling bling football when I went to my first international tournament, Euro 88.

Pro. F

Gavin shels wrote: »

Granted wrong decisions are made, but that's part of the game, talking points about the game. Grin and bare it, and rant about it for years afterwards.

TV for example, you don't see 20,000 crammed into Tolka Park for Drumcondra -v- Shamrock Rovers anyway. The lessier teams in England can't fill their stadiums, most likely down to people preferring to reside in their local watching it.

If all this technology is brought in, it will end up being like Rugby where every decision for a goal is questioned, every offside if challenged, etc...

The idea that wrong decisions are an important part of the game and they are good because they generate discussion is a nonsense. If that was the case then we would be better off choosing poor referees over good ones. There are plenty of talking points around football without the discussion of wrong decisions. Blatter came up with this point before. But when you think about it, how shít would a sport have to be where you need to promote cheating and poor decisions to generate talking points?

Televised matches is not a technology that has been brought into the game, i.e. used within the rules to shape the game. You might not think that football being on TV is a good thing (it would be an interesting discussion to weigh up the pros and cons), but that is not what we are talking about here. I doubt you can point to a technology being brought into the game that has been ''killing the game''.

Rugby Union is in great order with regards to referees and rules enforcement (except for the scrum). The footballing authorities should strive to run their matches half as sensibly as the Rugby Union crowd run theirs. The time taken up by consulting replays in Union is very unobtrusive. Far less obtrusive, for example, then the time taken up dealing with players in football pretending they are hurt or arguing with the referee (both of which could be cut down on with better rules and enforcement).

Rugby League though, I would say, is a warning of how TV officiating can become annoying. From watching the odd bit of NRL there seems to be way too much of it in that sport. Seems like they just end up consulting the video official for every punt into the try area. But that type of thing can be avoided, we just need to strike the right balance. Opposing any introduction of video technology into the game because of what would happen if it's done wrong would be silly.

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I guess there's some things the sky sports generation will never get...

So do you or do you not admit that the rules/structure/equipment of the game is not the same at all levels? That was your point originally after all.

TheBigLebowski

Pro. F wrote: »

So do you or do you not admit that the rules/structure/equipment of the game is not the same at all levels? That was your point originally after all.

There are variations. Even within the premier league there are variations with regards to playing surface and equipment but I stand by my original point. The basics are there at all levels i.e. goal, lines, ball, ref and players. What more do you need?

Gavin "shels"

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

The basics are there at all levels i.e. goal, lines, ball, ref and players. What more do you need?

...Hawk-eye, goal-line technology, laser beams to make sure the goal-line technology isn't wrong, sensors on players hands to prove handball situations!:rolleyes:

Zebra3

Hopefully all these changes are introduced to club training sessions as well just to make sure the right players are picked for the teams.

MagicMarker

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I have two points.

Point A: Tennis is shite

Point B: The beauty of football is that the rules/structure/equipment of the game is the same the world over. Whether rich or poor, whether you are playing on a dirt field in the ethiopian desert, whether you are playing in the under 7s down in the phoenix park - all you need is a referee, goals, lines and a football. In my opinion the further the game at the highest level goes away from this, the more of it's soul it loses.

You haven't really thought this one through have ya?

Paparazzo

Gavin shels wrote: »

The only step this shows is how technology is actually killing the game of football more and more.

Gavin shels wrote: »

Granted wrong decisions are made, but that's part of the game, talking points about the game. Grin and bare it, and rant about it for years afterwards.



TV for example, you don't see 20,000 crammed into Tolka Park for Drumcondra -v- Shamrock Rovers anyway. The lessier teams in England can't fill their stadiums, most likely down to people preferring to reside in their local watching it.

If all this technology is brought in, it will end up being like Rugby where every decision for a goal is questioned, every offside if challenged, etc...

I usually agree with your posts, but you're way off the mark here imho. First of all, goal line technology is completely different to video technology. No one is talking about video technology. Secondly, surely you can't compare televised games with this? Televised games is obviously bad for attendance, but that doesn't mean technology = bad.
Without guessing about other technology entering the game, how is ensuring the ball has properly crossed the line bad for the game?

token56

From what I understand this will just allow referees to confirm if a ball has crossed the line or not, how can that be a bad thing.

Just because it can't be afforded by amateurs or a group of lads playing football, nonsense really. Not every amateur game or group of lads playing football have qualified linesmen to call offside but does that mean we shouldn't have linesmen in professional games of course not. When I'm playing a game I realise I'm not a professional footballer and I'm not expecting it to be played like a professional game and all the ins and outs that go with one. But when I watch a professional game what I enjoy seeing is professionalism, in the play and the decisions that are made. When I think of professionalism I think of the highest quality, this doesn't always happen with the decisions and the play always but when something like this can be introduced to the professional game to help ensure high quality it is most certainly not a bad thing.

People need to realise there is a difference between the professional game and the amateur one whether people like it or not. The same can be said in a lot of major sports. And changes made in the professional game do not need to be realistic of what is possible in the amateur one as long as the basics stay the same. This doesn't change the basics, its purely something to help clarify the decisions in the professional game.

ShaneU

FIFA to test 9 goal-line systems

ESPN wrote:

ZURICH -- Nine goal-line technology systems will be tested in an attempt to find one that works well enough to be approved for match use next year, FIFA said Thursday.

FIFA didn't identify the nine candidates, all from Europe, that will be examined between September and December by the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology.

"Each company's respective technology will be scrutinized across a broad range of criteria, in both daylight and floodlit conditions," FIFA said.

FIFA's rule-making body, the International Football Association Board, will study the results in London in March and invite the best systems to a second round of trials.

The IFAB panel, composed of FIFA officials and the four British associations, can approve successful systems at a meeting scheduled next July.

First, the nine candidates must show their technology's "recognition of free shots on goal, with 100 percent accuracy required, as well as static and dynamic accuracy tests, to 90 percent accuracy in the first phase."

FIFA also requires that the match referee must know within a second if a goal has been scored.

The message is relayed "with both a vibration and visual signal required to be sent to the referee's watch. This indication must be received wherever the referee is positioned on the field of play, or within the technical areas," FIFA said.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter reversed his opposition to tests after England was denied a clear goal in its second-round loss against Germany at the 2010 World Cup.

Blatter has said the technology could be in place at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, though that plan will be opposed by influential UEFA president Michel Platini. He favors employing additional assistant referees beside each goal.

Nine systems were previously tested at FIFA headquarters before the annual IFAB meeting in March, but their accuracy was unacceptable.

Hawk-Eye, the Sony-owned company whose ball-tracking technology is used in tennis and cricket, declined to participate because its system uses cameras that need to be set up in a stadium.

keane2097

Gavin shels wrote: »

Granted wrong decisions are made, but that's part of the game, talking points about the game. Grin and bare it, and rant about it for years afterwards.

That's retarded.

Paparazzo wrote: »

Although, looks like the reason it's being brought in is purely to annoy FIFA.

FA's should be taking this line over every issue, improvements to the game will simply be a natural upshot.

Pro. F

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

There are variations. Even within the premier league there are variations with regards to playing surface and equipment but I stand by my original point. The basics are there at all levels i.e. goal, lines, ball, ref and players. What more do you need?

And the basics will still be there at all levels. What you need will not change one bit.