sandman wrote:It wont happen because Sepp Blatter knows if they bring in technology then refs cant favour cunts like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WevC_zuu2n4
Kyle wrote:I don't think it is a good thing at all. It would absolutly change the way football would be played allowing more stoppages and breaks for rest. However, something has to be done and I think putting an official on each goaline would solve most of the official's errors regarding goals, handballs, and penalties and wouldn't take a break in the game to check the video.
Esky wrote:Kyle wrote:I don't think it is a good thing at all. It would absolutly change the way football would be played allowing more stoppages and breaks for rest. However, something has to be done and I think putting an official on each goaline would solve most of the official's errors regarding goals, handballs, and penalties and wouldn't take a break in the game to check the video.
Agree absolutely. Can't stand the way every remotely questionable call goes upstairs in rugby - breaks up the flow of the game when 99% of the time the decision's a formality anyway.
sandman wrote:Esky wrote:Kyle wrote:I don't think it is a good thing at all. It would absolutly change the way football would be played allowing more stoppages and breaks for rest. However, something has to be done and I think putting an official on each goaline would solve most of the official's errors regarding goals, handballs, and penalties and wouldn't take a break in the game to check the video.
Agree absolutely. Can't stand the way every remotely questionable call goes upstairs in rugby - breaks up the flow of the game when 99% of the time the decision's a formality anyway.
Where currently this time is spent surrounding the ref arguing despite 6 of 10 times the ref being right first time?
I dont think it would slow the game as much as people think, its different in rugby as there are usually bodies covering the ball etc.
Kyle wrote:sandman wrote:Esky wrote:Kyle wrote:I don't think it is a good thing at all. It would absolutly change the way football would be played allowing more stoppages and breaks for rest. However, something has to be done and I think putting an official on each goaline would solve most of the official's errors regarding goals, handballs, and penalties and wouldn't take a break in the game to check the video.
Agree absolutely. Can't stand the way every remotely questionable call goes upstairs in rugby - breaks up the flow of the game when 99% of the time the decision's a formality anyway.
Where currently this time is spent surrounding the ref arguing despite 6 of 10 times the ref being right first time?
I dont think it would slow the game as much as people think, its different in rugby as there are usually bodies covering the ball etc.
i understand your argument but trust me it would take a long time. In hockey and basketball they take 4-8 minutes sometimes trying to decide something as simple as did the puck cross the line, or did the ball release his hand before time was up? They would find every excuse to use it and the players would exploit it just like they exploit injuries to get extra time to calm down or rest.
sandman wrote:Kyle wrote:sandman wrote:Esky wrote:Kyle wrote:I don't think it is a good thing at all. It would absolutly change the way football would be played allowing more stoppages and breaks for rest. However, something has to be done and I think putting an official on each goaline would solve most of the official's errors regarding goals, handballs, and penalties and wouldn't take a break in the game to check the video.
Agree absolutely. Can't stand the way every remotely questionable call goes upstairs in rugby - breaks up the flow of the game when 99% of the time the decision's a formality anyway.
Where currently this time is spent surrounding the ref arguing despite 6 of 10 times the ref being right first time?
I dont think it would slow the game as much as people think, its different in rugby as there are usually bodies covering the ball etc.
i understand your argument but trust me it would take a long time. In hockey and basketball they take 4-8 minutes sometimes trying to decide something as simple as did the puck cross the line, or did the ball release his hand before time was up? They would find every excuse to use it and the players would exploit it just like they exploit injuries to get extra time to calm down or rest.
Then put a 90 second limit on it, if a definate decision cannot be given within 90 seconds then always disallow the goal.
Lee_R wrote:Whos for it?..
I know right now every England fan is saying we should bring it in.. but come on, sometimes errors can be to our advantage. Personally I prefer football the way it is. Basically in THIS game if our defense wasnt shit we'd be winning 1-0 now regardless of technology.
Moonchesteri wrote:We can only guess whether England had won 1966 world cup if any sort of goal line/video technology had been there.
Quote: "However, a study conducted by the Engineering Department at Oxford University concluded that the ball did not cross the line entirely and that it was 6 cms away from being a goal (Goal-directed Video Metrology)."
In a similar fashion we can only guess whether England would've won 2010 WC.
Imho human errors like this belong to football.
sandman wrote:Esky wrote:Kyle wrote:I don't think it is a good thing at all. It would absolutly change the way football would be played allowing more stoppages and breaks for rest. However, something has to be done and I think putting an official on each goaline would solve most of the official's errors regarding goals, handballs, and penalties and wouldn't take a break in the game to check the video.
Agree absolutely. Can't stand the way every remotely questionable call goes upstairs in rugby - breaks up the flow of the game when 99% of the time the decision's a formality anyway.
Where currently this time is spent surrounding the ref arguing despite 6 of 10 times the ref being right first time?, its different in rugby as there are usually bodies covering the ball etc.I dont think it would slow the game as much as people think
Moonchesteri wrote:We can only guess whether England had won 1966 world cup if any sort of goal line/video technology had been there.
Quote: "However, a study conducted by the Engineering Department at Oxford University concluded that the ball did not cross the line entirely and that it was 6 cms away from being a goal (Goal-directed Video Metrology)."
In a similar fashion we can only guess whether England would've won 2010 WC.
Imho human errors like this belong to football.
ronk wrote:Moonchesteri wrote:We can only guess whether England had won 1966 world cup if any sort of goal line/video technology had been there.
Quote: "However, a study conducted by the Engineering Department at Oxford University concluded that the ball did not cross the line entirely and that it was 6 cms away from being a goal (Goal-directed Video Metrology)."
In a similar fashion we can only guess whether England would've won 2010 WC.
Imho human errors like this belong to football.
Fine, but then why waste all that money training, evaluating, paying and flying refs around the world. If human error is a required part of the game then there's no problem with poor match officials.
If you welcome dodgy decisions that eliminate the aspect of contest from football then you're giving up the right to ever complain about a referee's decision. That's a different thing from accepting that referees aren't perfect, it's saying that a perfect referee would be to the detriment of the game.
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: Dubciteh, Google [Bot], Mase, nottsblue, ruralblue, Scatman, zuricity and 522 guests