The Ref Stop

Goal line technology

The Ref Stop
Looking forward to it being used personally. I watched a couple of videos made of the testing and the system in practice, and assuming it all functions properly in the cold, wet, drizzle that is so often the UK football environment, I really do think it will help the referee immensely.

There are too many wrong calls made in this area for it to be ignored any longer I'm afraid, and, while it is meant ot be a sport, the implications of a goal given wrongly, or disallowed incorrectly, can be immense at the top levels, and I really don't think the 'extra assistants' on the goal line in UEFA games have helped matters at all!

Biggest problem will be malfunctions of the ball and communication between the three bits of kit, but otherwise, quick, clear and concise notification straight to the refs wrist. I believe the criteria is that it has to be within one second of the ball crossing the line that the watch blinks 'GOAL' and vibrates.

Now, don't get me started on the video replays scenario....lol
 
I definitely agree with the need for goal line technology. I have always wanted it, especially when the Lampard goal crossed the line by a yard against Germany in 2010, and it wasn't given!

I think that the extra officials have made a small difference, not on this topic, but we don't get to see it much! Hopefully this link will show you more. Once he has stopped talking, match incidents are shown. Hope this helps.

http://uk.uefa.com/uefa/video/videoid=1881969.html?autoplay=true


The other version is 'Hawk Eye', but for football instead of tennis isn't it? I would personally prefer that. What if the ball that has the technology inside gets kicked out of the stadium? You would have to pair up the ball you throw onto the pitch with the watch again. Hawk Eye has proved itself in tennis, with a much smaller ball, and smaller lines, so surely, if you could have a system that vibrates as you say, but for the 4th official for example. I don't know how it would get the message back, but I would prefer Hawk Eye. The malfunctions would be a lot less with Hawk Eye, but I don't how the message would get to the referee. As long as the need for replays aren't needed. Even if there was a small monitor next to the 4th official, which blinked 'Goal' when the ball crosses the line, and then for him to relay the message to the referee. Just my personal opinion on that.

And noted, I won't start a thread on video replays!
 
All the balls to be used at the game are 'paired' with the watch and the sensors around the goal frame before kick off. So if Ronaldo puts one over the roof at the Bernabeu, the ball thrown on has already been added to the system.

I know they tried Hawkeye a few years back, and it proved too inaccurate - to the point where the AETC revisited it and it underwent a few changes for tennis, but it's had a complete re-design for football.

The video I saw, showed two of the systems being tested, and all the officials wear a watch paired with the balls and goal frames, IF the ball passes the sensor, all the watches signal GOAL within one second.

The technology is there, and it's accurate enough, and I can only aassume that everyhting has been tested to destruction - what damage would a full volley from Christiano's left boot do if it flew in the top corner and hit the sensor?
 
I don't think its Ronaldo you need to be worried about, but Ramos!

I just don't think that a ball can be made well enough to take the hits that they do.

The left boot of Ronaldo might not do too much damage, but the right might!
 
I'm a bit of a purist personally and would prefer to see changes that could feasibly be implemented throughout all levels of the game.

However, the significance of getting these things 100% right is important, and I suppose it would give the clueless pundits such as Townsend and Hansen etc. less scope to hurt our ears by giving their uninformed opinions on how modern football should be refereed.

All for the greater good.
 
I think it's a great idea. MLS here in the US has supported it from the beginning, but it looks like it won't come here until 2015 or so. Not that we don't want it, but apparently there are only those two vendors, and not enough FIFA approved staff to install it in all of our MLS stadiums. The FIFA approved installation/inspection requirement makes it too hard to implement right away, which is too bad.

Here's a link to an article on why it can't be implemented right away in MLS.
 
jojo said:
.

The left boot of Ronaldo might not do too much damage, but the right might!
Click to expand...

I was once in the West Stand at OT when Ronaldo let one go with his left, just over the bar. Being a former GK, my reaction was to put my hands up and stop it - trust me, his left boot can do serious damage!

My hands stung for a week!
 
Imagine with his right though! I think your hands would do more than sting then!
 
I am personally against any type of aid that won't be available at grassroots, so I am against it. It is these decisions that keep football exciting. How long will it be until we have matches being holted for aminute for some guy watching a TV tells the referee if he was right or not?!
 
Im curious to see it in action, but seeing as itll never be rolled out at grassroots level, im not a fan
 
Reffariiii said:
How long will it be until we have matches being holted for aminute for some guy watching a TV tells the referee if he was right or not?!
Click to expand...

There are many things that don't appear at Grassroots level (such as decent ARs lol), but I can see your point. Personally though, I do think it should be used at the higher levels of the game, FIFA tournaments, UEFA, and top domestic leagues (Premier League) at the very least.

Whether we like it or not, I do think the involvement of technology is inevitable, and I would hate to see the game stopped regularly to refer to a 'video ref' BUT, I do think it could be workable without adding too much time to the match.

My idea has been lifted from Gridiron - give the Manager of each team coloured flags. Let's say they have one per half. An incident occurs on the FOP, the manager thinks the ref got it wrong so throws the flag. Ref stops game. Video Ref then has 60 secs to review the incident and communicate decision to Ref on Field.

If he upholds the ref decision, then play restarted with IDFK against team that called for video.
If he disagrees, then play restarted with the correct restart for the incident, as it occured.
If he can't reach definate decision, then continue with IDFK as above.

Now, if you limit the number of flags a manager can use per half, you also limit the hold-ups in the game. Say they have two flags per game, but can only use one in each half. If not used in 1st half, CANNOT be carried into 2nd Half.

Game is only stopped for ONE MINUTE for each flag, therefore, only ever adding 4 minutes maximum to the total game. 2mins at end of each half.

So, the manager has to decide whether to use the flag or not, so a snap decision 'Is it worth it?'.

Those bosses that question the ref all the time, especially post-match, the question is put back on them : 'You could have flagged it'.

The TV coverage would provide the feed for the video ref, and it could be implemented at very little cost at all games that are covered by TV cameras.

Could also be implemented to Grass Roots level, although 'a bloke with an i-phone' may not catch all the action :-)
 
MattyontheWhistle said:
There are many things that don't appear at Grassroots level (such as decent ARs lol), but I can see your point. Personally though, I do think it should be used at the higher levels of the game, FIFA tournaments, UEFA, and top domestic leagues (Premier League) at the very least.

Whether we like it or not, I do think the involvement of technology is inevitable, and I would hate to see the game stopped regularly to refer to a 'video ref' BUT, I do think it could be workable without adding too much time to the match.

My idea has been lifted from Gridiron - give the Manager of each team coloured flags. Let's say they have one per half. An incident occurs on the FOP, the manager thinks the ref got it wrong so throws the flag. Ref stops game. Video Ref then has 60 secs to review the incident and communicate decision to Ref on Field.

If he upholds the ref decision, then play restarted with IDFK against team that called for video.
If he disagrees, then play restarted with the correct restart for the incident, as it occured.
If he can't reach definate decision, then continue with IDFK as above.

Now, if you limit the number of flags a manager can use per half, you also limit the hold-ups in the game. Say they have two flags per game, but can only use one in each half. If not used in 1st half, CANNOT be carried into 2nd Half.

Game is only stopped for ONE MINUTE for each flag, therefore, only ever adding 4 minutes maximum to the total game. 2mins at end of each half.

So, the manager has to decide whether to use the flag or not, so a snap decision 'Is it worth it?'.

Those bosses that question the ref all the time, especially post-match, the question is put back on them : 'You could have flagged it'.

The TV coverage would provide the feed for the video ref, and it could be implemented at very little cost at all games that are covered by TV cameras.

Could also be implemented to Grass Roots level, although 'a bloke with an i-phone' may not catch all the action :)
Click to expand...

Disclaimer: I'm scared that my disagreement with you in most threads so far may give the impression I don't like you, but honestly, this isn't the case!

Your idea does, in essence, have sound logic. However, can you imagine Fergie and Wenger on the touchline with a flag?! Worse still, can you imagine two Sunday league managers with a flag in their hand on the touchline?!

On a more practical sense, how would you define who gets the flag? At the higher levels, sure the manager, but a grassroots, the manager is often coach, physio, player and CAR. Sometimes there is nobody off the pitch that would be able to do it. And obviously, cameras would work at high levels but not at grassroots.

There are 3 main issues I have with goaline technology/technology in general.

1. Football is one of very few sports that unites people from all levels, ages, cultures, races, height, weight, strength etc, and yes there is a difference between the top of the ladder and the bottom of the ladder, but I am of the belief that technology should only be used at a scale that is available to all referees at all levels. e.g. buzzer flags can be bought and used by any referee, comms kit, yes a bit expensive, but again can be used by any referee (provide your FA approves). Being Welsh, a lot of my friends are into rugby (I can't stand it) and they play at local level. They say that having the TMO's at televised matches has ruined the respect that a rugby official used to get at local level, because they expect the same correctness in their local matches, something that obviously doesn't happen. We know that players impersonate the like of Rooney et all, so it will just make it worse.

Imagine this, on a Saturday afternoon, Rooney strikes on goal, its an is/isn't one. Referee gets the signal from the goal line gizmo that says yes, goal, happy days. The Sunday morning after, Joe Bloggs of The Ship Inn strike on goal, is/isn;'t situation again, the referee says no, even though in fact it has crossed the line. Joe Bloggs will think back to Rooney's incident yesterday, and demands the same treatment. Of course, this isn't available. How is this fair? Bringing major technology like this in at the top is not fair for Referees, coaches, clubs and players at lower levels.

2. Decision making technology takes away the 'purpose' of the referee. Making decisions, wright or wrong, is part of the reason I referee, and I enjoy it. At the rate things are going, we might just end up being message carriers for a computer!

3. I know its a cliche, but debatable decision form a massive part of the appeal of football. Yes we wan't to be as correct as we can, but the fans love it when the referee makes a mistake, its a talking point in the pub after and keeps it an enjoyable match. I would hate to see football refereed by a robot! In addition to this, its the way you react after making a dubious decision that teaches you how to man manage.
 
Lol.....opinions are all valid in any discussion, and I hold nothing against you.

I am, in principle, against technology being used in football. I just see it as an inevitable development - eventually. The problem will be how to make it work with the beautiful game.

At the moment, the technology will ONLY be used for goal-line decisions, and I do think that there have been far too many incorrect decisions that have affected the outcome of matches, and it is technology (TV) that allows us to see them as incorrect. Otherwise they would be accepted, and the game carries on. But, they are shown in slo-mo, super-slo-mo, 'virtual goal' and all manner of different angles post-match and show that the referee has made a mistake.

My suggestion above was made to encourage discussion - it's not a 'perfect' system, but yeah, Fergie with a flag cud be comical - but once he's used it he doesn't get it back! He would think twice before throwing it, and then, the onus is on him to 'get it right' or accept the decision.

I do take your point about the grass roots, but there is always, and will always be a huge gap between the top levels and the roots of any sport, and I can't help but think that technology will make it's way into our sport, and rather than stand in the way of the inevitable, I would like to see more constructive discussions from the 'authorities' and pundits as to how it can be used without ruining the character, and spirit of the game.
 
I welcome the use of goal line technology, but I haven't read how it'll be implemented. Anyone have a link? I'm just wondering how the sequence will play out, and who is responsible for notifying the referee.

Let's take Lampard's non-goal in the last world cup. The sequence might go:

Shot is taken
Shot appears to enter goal
Neither referee nor assistant is in position to judge with 100% accuracy that the whole of the ball has crossed the whole of the goal line
Keeper immediately grabs the ball, and puts it into play

Now s the part I'm a little unclear on.

Will the technology *immediately* notify the match referee via radio (by a tone, or computerized voice, or something) that the ball has crossed the line?

If so, I can see how this will work just fine in the sequence of events. I would guess that referee hears the automated system, and signals that a goal has been scored (maybe whistle to stop play), and the restart goes as normal (with a kickoff).

Use of video review, however, would really change the game, in my opinion. While it is important to get calls right, I'm not sure that giving the coach the ability to stop the match (by throwing a "review" flag, or some other method) is in the current spirit of the game. It would certainly add new tactics, and I'm not sure if it will make the game more enjoyable for the spectators or the players.

For example, will reviewing an offside decision do anything helpful for the game? Let's say a very close call is given, and the offside infraction is signalled. Would this even be worth stopping the match for? What would be the restart if video review proves that the attacker was NOT offside? IDFK for the *attacking* team at the point where the player was when he was flagged for offside? This, after a review of the play has stopped the match cold? I'd say this will make the game way too much like American football, where the play stops all the time (and commercials are shown). Booooring!

What about an offside that is NOT called, and goal is scored? Say, Tevez' offside goal against Mexico in the last world cup, for example? This might actually work. The match is already stopped while the players return to their sides for the kickoff. If it can definitively be proven that the actively involved player was offside prior to the goal, then the match official can quickly say that the play was overturned on review, so the restart is an IDFK at the proper location. If we limit this to one review per half, as Matty suggests, that might work, and not interfere with the flow of the game.

I think video review would ONLY work where play will naturally stop regardless, and the restart cannot be taken quickly (does this mean only plays immediately preceding a goal can be reviewed? Maybe...)

Wouldn't it significantly change the game if a video challenge can be given just before any restart that CAN be taken quickly (corner kicks, goal kicks, throw-ins, DFK/IDFK)? It could be a manager's tactic to challenge a play just before a quick free kick is taken, for example.

Just my quick thoughts on the matter...
 
The goal line technology would notify the referee once the ball has crossed the line (immediately).
 
I personally think that there should be goal line tech and AAR's (Goal line tech won't always work fully), as for a rugby like TMO I think there should be one for one of those tackles that isn't clear whether it is a yellow or red card or mass brawls where it's unclear who's done what.
 
jojo said:
The goal line technology would notify the referee once the ball has crossed the line (immediately).
Click to expand...
The video I saw said that in order to gain FIFA approval, was that the referee's watch had to signal 'GOAL' within one second of the ball crossing the line.

Any longer and the equipment would fail to get approval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top