A&H

Imagine a world without a Goal Decision System.

The Referee Store
Sorry, I should have noted the time in the video.
It's scary to think of having to make such a decision without technology but we do it every week. Would the AR have even seen it clearly or at all? Doesn't appear to make a signal. Would I as an AR been able to react correctly in such a situation?
Feyenoord has effectively won the Eredivisie after that win.
 
Yampy said:
Sorry, I should have noted the time in the video.
It's scary to think of having to make such a decision without technology but we do it every week. .
Click to expand...

Yep - had to do so on Saturday. From a corner, pinball in the box, ball going in, but ... still not sure how he did it, been green defender somehow bent his body so he could head the ball out. Inevitable appeals from white, I was edge of box looking in, no way was I going to give it from where I was, looked across to CAR, no help at all (if he'd have said it was in, against his team, I'd have given it). Greens break, and go and score immediately at the other end, so instead of being 2-0 to whites was 1-1.

To be fair, white manager after the game was very magmanamous and praised the green defender. Was it in? With no technology to help, we'll never know, but ref said not in, so no goal!
 
What is the referee doing with his arm in this clip?

It looks like he signals a goal... and then rubs his arm... and then points at his watch...
But does actually get buzzed by his alarm that it's full time and then he blows and points with one hand and rubs his arm... WTF

I understand the AR can't give the goal as he can't see... but WTF
 

Wow
Watch this clip from 32 seconds and tell me when the ball crosses the line, I just cannot see it
 
deusex said:

Wow
Watch this clip from 32 seconds and tell me when the ball crosses the line, I just cannot see it
Click to expand...
He's sitting behind the goal line with his hand on the ball then inexplicably pulls the ball to his chest thus bringing it wholly over the line.
It's clear on the original clip from 1:40.
Technology doesn't lie, does it?
 
Officials had no chance to spot that one!!
You can see that the ball appears to move back a little in the air, but anybody who thinks this clip clearly shows either way is kidding themselves. Technology is the only chance here.

Saw one of the players wearing the wrong undershirt too.

I liked the way it was signalled by the referee.
 
Decision given by technology or not, what a comical error from the keeper though. Brains of a rocking horse moment, often described as a "school boy" error that even a kid would get told off for! :D

Kind of reminds me of an u10s mini-soccer match I did years ago. I was stood near half way, about 10 yards or so from play. Home team player has a long range shot, away keeper standing just in front of the goal line catches the ball cleanly. However as he shapes to drop kick the ball from his hands, he dropped the ball behind him before reaching back and picks up again. Home team parents (most of which were at the opposite end) and manager (who is also near half way) go absolutely mental that the ball had crossed the line.

My immediate thoughts were that given his body position, it probably did cross the line, but given my position and not having AR's, no way I was going to give it based on probabilities and touchline shouts even though I had a hunch it did cross the line. Had he dived full length into the back of his net Roy Carroll style, I just might have given a different decision. Needless to say home team made their feelings clear to me at full time that they had been cheated! Score at the time of the incident and at full time was 8-0 to the home side. :confused:

Now I am also aware before certain users jump all over this, that according to the full letter of the law, the 10 year old keeper at the very least technically committed a double handling offence, which should have resulted in a free kick to the home side (No indirect free kicks in mini-soccer). However in the interests of "the spirit of the game" (something mini-soccer laws had written into them long before the recent 11v11 re-write) and feeling a bit sorry for the hapless keeper, who had already been penalised for picking up a backpass earlier in the game (something his manager was not happy about, as in his words "he hadn't taught his team that yet"), I decided to "overlook" his error and waved pay on! ;)
 
Last edited:
Any thoughts on a foul in the build up to the final goal? The player who heads for goal on the edge of the 6-yard box is marked, then the marker goes flying and he's left with a free header. Looks very much like he's pushed his defender away before the ball comes to him - the gaol line decision would be impossible without technology, but I think the foul could have been given on first viewing?
 
Yampy said:
Technology doesn't lie, does it?
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but it's not infallible either. Hawkeye uses a reconstructed track system (RTS) to estimate the position of the ball. It has a margin of error which means it will inevitably get the occasional marginal decision wrong. I haven't seen figures quoted for its use in football but in tennis it claims an average margin of error of 2.2mm. Since that is an average, it means that on occasion, the error is even greater. It's also potentially subject to calibration errors. Having said that however, it's still a lot better than the human eye and of course, totally impartial.
 
Peter Grove said:
Maybe not, but it's not infallible either. Hawkeye uses a reconstructed track system (RTS) to estimate the position of the ball. It has a margin of error which means it will inevitably get the occasional marginal decision wrong. I haven't seen figures quoted for its use in football but in tennis it claims an average margin of error of 2.2mm. Since that is an average, it means that on occasion, the error is even greater. It's also potentially subject to calibration errors. Having said that however, it's still a lot better than the human eye and of course, totally impartial.
Click to expand...

Yet the players still swarmed the ref: "That ball clearly still had 3mm left on the line ref!!!!!"
Shows what little chance we have when they will argue with a computer
 
Peter Grove said:
Maybe not, but it's not infallible either. Hawkeye uses a reconstructed track system (RTS) to estimate the position of the ball. It has a margin of error which means it will inevitably get the occasional marginal decision wrong. I haven't seen figures quoted for its use in football but in tennis it claims an average margin of error of 2.2mm. Since that is an average, it means that on occasion, the error is even greater. It's also potentially subject to calibration errors. Having said that however, it's still a lot better than the human eye and of course, totally impartial.
Click to expand...
GDS deals in cold, hard facts. It's impartial and black and white and I like that part of it. As you say, it will have a margin of error but I don't think it would any worse than the human eye and brain would react in these situations, specially at the speed these things tend to happen. The technology also strips away the objects which may cloud a human's judgement, too. If the human margin for error could be measured, I'd say the machine is better and thus totally agree with what you say, Peter.
At first I was a skeptic but I've changed my view on GDS, just a crying shame it's not a system that can be rolled out all the way down the pyramid. That said, it doesn't mean I'm keen on other video assistance.
 
deusex said:
Yet the players still swarmed the ref: "That ball clearly still had 3mm left on the line ref!!!!!"
Shows what little chance we have when they will argue with a computer
Click to expand...
In this example, the defending players are puzzled because they have clearly seen the GK stop the ball from crossing the goal line and every last one of them probably hasn't realised what the GK did, including the GK himself. I think their reaction is understandable albeit misguided. I suspect the referee may have been taken aback, too. Everything looked so innocuous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top