The Ref Stop

Huddersfield Blackpool

Anubis

Anubis

RefChat Addict
Goal denied due to refs watch not telling him ball was over line.
Ref unsighted, AR in any other game would be caliing it correctly
Dont even need to see the goal, the reaction of both sets of players tells everybody with any iota of football feeling that this is a goal.
Reminder again, the tech is an aid to the basics of refereeing not a replacement

Clear goal, ball over line, ref cant give it as his watch aint beeped,
 
The Ref Stop
I mean, that's obviously an unfair comparison. AR's in grassroots games know that ball over the line is a responsibility they should monitor as top priority - in games with GLT, choosing to stare at the goal line and double-up on the tech is a poor decision when you're more responsible for offside and fouls on that side of the PA. Ball over the line monitoring drops to (at best) 3rd priority.

And prioritisation is still no help if you are genuinely unsighted. There's a player on the line on the AR side, so I definitely buy that he's unsighted, and a crowded PA so it's definitely a possibility the ref is too.

In a game without tech, we might expect the ref to try and take a different position closer to the line - but again, this is a game with "reliable" goal line tech (and without VAR), so he's still responsible for monitoring a bunch of other potential eventualities, including any fouls if a counter-attack occurs. Putting yourself on the goal line should be unnecessary due to the tech, and is a terrible position if the ball breaks the other way and you need to make a DOGSO decision a few seconds later in the opposite half.
 
A Huddersfield thread not started by me. Never thought I'd get to see the day!

I wasn't at the ground for this one as I was at Old Trafford instead but those there said it looked like an obvious goal. Although they will be blinded by Huddersfield bias so take that as you will.

Having seen the replay though it looks obvious. The Town players run off celebrating, the Blackpool players all but stop, I can forgive the ref not calling it because his line of sight is blocked. His position isn't great but as someone else mentioned he's expecting to only use his watch. Really poor for the AR to miss it though.

Reminiscent of Michael Oliver with the Villa vs Sheffield United game not so long back.
 
If you're an assistant referee in the championship, are you going to possibly stake your career on overruling what's supposed to be a practically infallible technology when there is no VAR? Because I'm betting most of you wouldn't no matter how certain you were it was a goal.

And if you were a referee in the championship would you stick your career on listening to the advice of someone else when the practically infallible technology told you it wasn't a goal?
 
Last edited:
cwyeary said:
If you're an assistant referee in the championship, are you going to possibly stake your career on overruling what's supposed to be a practically infallible technology when there is no VAR? Because I'm betting most of you wouldn't no matter how certain you were it was a goal.
Click to expand...

Reverse it.

Its close but you can see its not in

Watch beeps, saying goal.

When you rely on tech over the basics, this is the lid taken off....


i can assure you I be flagging to get the ref over, " look i get the watch aint beeped but that ball was over the line"

ball in and out of play Its why we have an AR.
 
Anubis said:
Reverse it.

Its close but you can see its not in

Watch beeps, saying goal.

When you rely on tech over the basics, this is the lid taken off....


i can assure you I be flagging to get the ref over, " look i get the watch aint beeped but that ball was over the line"

ball in and out of play Its why we have an AR.
Click to expand...

Absolutely I go with the watch. Humans have proved much less inaccurate at determining ball over the line than GLT.

The Championship is probably the only League in the world that has GLT but not VAR. So absolutely I'm going with the watch every single time unless the ball is two yards in.
 
cwyeary said:
Absolutely I go with the watch. Humans have proved much less inaccurate at determining ball over the line than GLT.

The Championship is probably the only League in the world that has GLT but not VAR. So absolutely I'm going with the watch every single time unless the ball is two yards in.
Click to expand...

ok try this

drop that game down a division.

we now have a goal correctly given.

nobody is fooling anyone, that AR is well aware that ball has crossed the line
 
Anubis said:
Reverse it.

Its close but you can see its not in

Watch beeps, saying goal.

When you rely on tech over the basics, this is the lid taken off....


i can assure you I be flagging to get the ref over, " look i get the watch aint beeped but that ball was over the line"

ball in and out of play Its why we have an AR.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure anyone would do that with any level of confidence. With the technology existing, their priority would be offsides, fouls etc. They wouldn’t be looking at ball in the goal as a primary focus.

Even if the AR does think the ball has gone over the line, they know the technology is there and because they don’t know the technology has failed, you’re going to have an element of doubt in your mind that you’ve seen it incorrectly.
 
This is the views the AR and referee would have, both looking through multiple bodies. Over player reaction is one thing but nobody is overruling technology there
 

Attachments

  • FBDB3D66-C567-426F-9A4D-F20CA401BD13.png
    FBDB3D66-C567-426F-9A4D-F20CA401BD13.png
    5.8 MB · Views: 18
  • 5D23B11E-50A3-41AC-AB78-39961A9C295B.png
    5D23B11E-50A3-41AC-AB78-39961A9C295B.png
    6.3 MB · Views: 20
Genuine query, what does everyone think the decision would be with no technology. I'm going to say goal.

At what level do we draw the line. GLT has been extremely reliable but 2 failures in the last 27 months says its a system that doesn't always come off. By the way, that is in no way saying GLT is normally unreliable. There has been about 2000 matches in that time, so a success rate of 99.9% is phenomenal. I am a big fan of the tech, I think very few would dispute it has been a good introduction to football compared to the controversy of VAR.

But if it rifles into the back of the net referees wouldn't ignore Hawkeye if it failed. What line do we draw? When does it become so obvious that refs would go against Hawkeye. Here is certainly pushing it. Players have run off celebrating, I think with a better view it might have been given.
 
Joshref said:
Genuine query, what does everyone think the decision would be with no technology. I'm going to say goal.

At what level do we draw the line. GLT has been extremely reliable but 2 failures in the last 27 months says its a system that doesn't always come off. By the way, that is in no way saying GLT is normally unreliable. There has been about 2000 matches in that time, so a success rate of 99.9% is phenomenal. I am a big fan of the tech, I think very few would dispute it has been a good introduction to football compared to the controversy of VAR.

But if it rifles into the back of the net referees wouldn't ignore Hawkeye if it failed. What line do we draw? When does it become so obvious that refs would go against Hawkeye. Here is certainly pushing it. Players have run off celebrating, I think with a better view it might have been given.
Click to expand...

it's genuinely hard to say. it looks to me like the ball will be completely hidden from view to the AR by the diving keeper and other players on or near the line. it sure looks like it's over but the AR will be guessing

I would also add that for the vast majority of goals, GLT is irrelevant so the 99.99% figure isn't quite right, but I get what you mean.
 
Joshref said:
Genuine query, what does everyone think the decision would be with no technology. I'm going to say goal.

At what level do we draw the line. GLT has been extremely reliable but 2 failures in the last 27 months says its a system that doesn't always come off. By the way, that is in no way saying GLT is normally unreliable. There has been about 2000 matches in that time, so a success rate of 99.9% is phenomenal. I am a big fan of the tech, I think very few would dispute it has been a good introduction to football compared to the controversy of VAR.

But if it rifles into the back of the net referees wouldn't ignore Hawkeye if it failed. What line do we draw? When does it become so obvious that refs would go against Hawkeye. Here is certainly pushing it. Players have run off celebrating, I think with a better view it might have been given.
Click to expand...

You sum it up better than me

drop the game down a division, its a goal.
 
QuaverRef said:
This is the views the AR and referee would have, both looking through multiple bodies. Over player reaction is one thing but nobody is overruling technology there
Click to expand...

The still from the Ar supposed view only reinforces the shout for goal

its a bread and butter call for a decent Ar
 
Anubis said:
The still from the Ar supposed view only reinforces the shout for goal

its a bread and butter call for a decent Ar
Click to expand...

i would have to disagree, you're giving the goal without sight of the ball. if you guess goal and get it wrong cos the keeper has pulled off a worldie you're going to get absolute pelters
 
So far the Hawkeye failures mostly seem to be when there are a large number of players near the goal blocking most of the cameras, which means that those are also going to be the situations in which the assistant referee is probably screened as well.

The only other error I know of is in Germany when it apparently confused the goalkeeper's glove with the ball, but VAR was able to fix that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Joshref said:
Genuine query, what does everyone think the decision would be with no technology. I'm going to say goal.

At what level do we draw the line. GLT has been extremely reliable but 2 failures in the last 27 months says its a system that doesn't always come off. By the way, that is in no way saying GLT is normally unreliable. There has been about 2000 matches in that time, so a success rate of 99.9% is phenomenal. I am a big fan of the tech, I think very few would dispute it has been a good introduction to football compared to the controversy of VAR.

But if it rifles into the back of the net referees wouldn't ignore Hawkeye if it failed. What line do we draw? When does it become so obvious that refs would go against Hawkeye. Here is certainly pushing it. Players have run off celebrating, I think with a better view it might have been given.
Click to expand...
In theory, you would want the referee to be taking a slightly different position in a game without GLT. If he's further round and then pushes in toward the goal line on the far side, he's got a better chance of seeing the ball's over the line.

But. If there's a pull on someone going for the ball, he's arguably worse placed. If there's a foul on the GK he's arguably then in a worse position. If the ball is half-cleared and there's then a penalty shout on the other side of the goal, he's poorly positioned. And if the GK makes the save, jumps up and kicks/throws it long to start a counter-attack, he's definitely in the wrong place.

He knows he's in a game with GLT. Why wouldn't he adapt his game to account for that, mentally worrying about the goal line less in favour of freeing up decision-making capacity for other things that wouldn't involve second-guessing the tech? The success rate is genuinely better than could be achieved by a human standing on the goal line - so even if he did abandon every other decision in favour of double-checking the tech, any decision he gave that contradicted GLT is more likely to be wrong than it is right.

The best and most correct thing for him to do, is to wait for his watch to buzz. And even despite seeing this clip and knowing it's the second example in the last few years, I still think that will be the case in the next game he does too.
 
GraemeS said:
In any decision he gave that contradicted GLT is more likely to be wrong than it is right.
Click to expand...

This isn't a perfect comparison because the game didn't have goal line technology, but when this World Cup qualifier happened a few months ago everyone thought there had been an absolute robbery. There was no way this ball wasn't clearly over the goal line.

It wasn't until the next day when the video of the goal line camera came out through VAR and we could see how close it was. But you also see that the assistant referee thought it was a goal and the referee chose to play on waiting for the technology.


Theres no way the crew in Huddersfield could be confident enough to overule the technology with how the GK is positioned.
 
Anubis said:
The still from the Ar supposed view only reinforces the shout for goal

its a bread and butter call for a decent Ar
Click to expand...
I disagree but that aside, these are decent AR’s refereeing at a level where the technology exists. I’m not a high enough level to hear their pre games but I’d be confident in saying none of the instructions is to make goal line decisions your primary focus when you’ve got offsides to call and GLT in play
 
QuaverRef said:
I disagree but that aside, these are decent AR’s refereeing at a level where the technology exists. I’m not a high enough level to hear their pre games but I’d be confident in saying none of the instructions is to make goal line decisions your primary focus when you’ve got offsides to call and GLT in play
Click to expand...

as i say again, drop a league and thats a goal ( or a howler from AR if its not given)

its a run of the mill calll.

AR should be in line with post. Ball is beyond posts, Goal.
 
Anubis said:
as i say again, drop a league and thats a goal ( or a howler from AR if its not given)

its a run of the mill calll.

AR should be in line with post. Ball is beyond posts, Goal.
Click to expand...

but, how do you give the goal with any certainty if you cant see the ball? indicating a goal here is guessing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top