I've Fixed It !!!

Fandango

Mountainlad wrote: »

My problemn is we could implement hawk-eye in the 'big' games but it isn't really solving the problem.

You will still have problems at club level. Is club level not as important. It isn't an improvement, it's more of a cover up and possibly an excuse not to have a long hard look at what could be done to make things easier and better.

If this was the question then, no its not. Club level is of course important but dont buy for a second this "has to be across the board" nonsense. If so many other sports can easily introduce technology at the higher levels of the game, why in gods name is it so difficult for the GAA?

Fandango

gooch2k9 wrote: »

A sensor would be needed at the other side of the ball to know when the laser has been broken.

Ah, thats true. Which would bring in the height restrictions again. How about flamethrowers. If you need to replace the ball, it was a point Another serious suggestion tho, ya know the cameras used on the stumps in cricket? One of them pointing directly up just inside the goalpost on each side.

gooch2k9

Fandango wrote: »

Ah, thats true. Which would bring in the height restrictions again. How about flamethrowers. If you need to replace the ball, it was a point Another serious suggestion tho, ya know the cameras used on the stumps in cricket? One of them pointing directly up just inside the goalpost on each side.

Can't say I do:p

Oasis_Dublin

Clareman wrote: »

I would leave everything the way it is officials wise, but if a manager wanted to contest a score he's signal somehow to the ref, then the technology would be used, if it was inconclusive the ref's decision stands, if it was a wrong decision then the decision is reversed and the manager isn't charged for a "referral", limit the referrals to 3 a game maybe.

The problem is tactical use of these "referrals." Say team A is a point ahead and kicks a ball a mile wide. The manager of team A calls for a referral and the quick kick out that team B has taken has to be called back, thus taking the momentum out of the attack.

It's an interesting idea, but still has issues that need ironing out.

gooch2k9

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

The problem is tactical use of these "referrals." Say team A is a point ahead and kicks a ball a mile wide. The manager of team A calls for a referral and the quick kick out that team B has taken has to be called back, thus taking the momentum out of the attack.

It's an interesting idea, but still has issues that need ironing out.

Surely it wouldn't be allowed to be used unless there was genuine indecision.

Mountainlad

Fandango wrote: »

If this was the question then, no its not. Club level is of course important but dont buy for a second this "has to be across the board" nonsense. If so many other sports can easily introduce technology at the higher levels of the game, why in gods name is it so difficult for the GAA?

How is club level not as important? All county players play for clubs and would never have gotten where they are without them.

I won't argue that Inter-County standard is higher, but the term higher level is one you need to be careful with. There all still amateurs. In other sports, at professional levels they have measures in place that aren't there at amateur levels. But there all amateurs in GAA so it's preferential treatment.

My problem is not that I don't want to see an improvement, it's just I want to see a porblem solved, not half a problem solved. If they brought in technology, would there be no alteration to anything else therefore no improvements for club level officiating?

I support my club religiously, and would be as angerede by an outrageous decision doing my club out of a game as I would Waterford. The only thing is I couldn't talk about it as much as only people supporting the club would have any interest.

yabadabado

A TMO at all championship games would be the best solution imo ,the score cather would also help.I dont think the TMO would slow the game down much at all could be just used for scores and square ball.Have 2 players form each team nominated to talk to the ref and along with TMO, it would be quicker than the usual story after a debatable call of the whole team and ref arguing about the decision for a couple of mins.
Also the ref should not do the time keeping.

Oasis_Dublin

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Surely it wouldn't be allowed to be used unless there was genuine indecision.

How do you define genuine indecision though. How close to the goal does it have to be? I just think it is open to abuse. In the same way as tennis players use them to slow the game down when there is no hope of them being successful.

Prop Joe

So what defines use of the tmo, The Bernard Brogan Free v Kildare??
Just square ball or debatable scores.
Fouls in or outside the square
what happens if a guy scores a goal after taking too many steps,can it be used then?? think it would be opening a massive can of worms tbh

Fandango

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Can't say I do:p

Its a tiny camera in the middle stump. Doesnt get in the way at all as its very small and fully imbedded in the wood. Think that could help alot.

ArmaniJeanss

Prop Joe wrote: »

So what defines use of the tmo, The Bernard Brogan Free v Kildare??
Just square ball or debatable scores.
Fouls in or outside the square
what happens if a guy scores a goal after taking too many steps,can it be used then?? think it would be opening a massive can of worms tbh

People also never actually explain what they mean by a referral to a TMO and seem to swap between it being a 'referee' referral like in rugby or a 'player/manager' referral like in tennis or American football.
But they are hugely different things obviously.

There's also the issue of what question the referee asks the TMO. Should the referee be asking 'is it a penalty?' or should he be asking 'I have given a penalty, is there any overwhelming evidence to suggest that it isn't a penalty'. The first way is more obvious but it will often lead to a 50/50 decision going the opposite way, even though the decision is so close that either answer would be perfectly fine.

Then the issue of whether what happens in the runup to the decision counts or not. A forward is fouled, the TMO declares penalty, but then notices that the midfielder who made the final pass took 6 steps. Penalty or not? How far back do we go in the build up to the referred incident to spot the first illegality?

Then the question about whether there can be a TMO referral when the ball is still in play, and if not, are people willing to accept that 3 or 4 minutes may pass while say Donegal hand pass the ball up the field for a point, before the play comes back to TMO the earlier incident.

So many complications, annoys me when the clowns on the tv panels blithely say how simple it would be.