The mancityfans.net football forum

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.

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

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

Gurr!

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.

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.

no one is for it until things go against them, like was said when Henry cheated the irish, the game is the game.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then fans would just say the ref is still cheating by not running over fast enough, or not being able to see the "clear" call. There is just too much room for loopholes, better to have the manpower there right in front of the call.

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.

I'm with you, there aren't many of us though.

One of the great things about attending a football match is the passions raised and subsequent debate by what we may or may not perceive to be a refereeing error. Technology would take that away.
And let's face it, if the cameras were NOT there we wouldn't be discussing this - football is played on grass, officiated by real people who can only give decisions based on what they ACTUALLY see - and should be for those actually attending the game, not dictated by the masses watching on a TV screen.

However, I see no excuse whatsoever when a major tournament can't follow the Europa league example and have extra officials placed behind the goal.

Either way, let it not detract from the truth that England were, frankly, embarrassing today - totally outplayed by what I consider to be a fairly average German team.

Fans of Tennis, Cricket, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Speedway, F1 and no doubt there are others, will be sat laughing at our countrys' favourite sport right now and that can't be right. I'm not saying it's without its problems but all it needs is the 4th official having a dedicated monitor with a feed to a goal line camera in it. 5 seconds later he tells the ref it's a goal.

Any mods around to make this a poll?

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.

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.

lol. good one.

I'm totally in favour and always have been, every other top level sport uses technology and the "you can't bring it in at every level" argument is proved to be nonsense in those sports. More time is usually wasted with players argueing than it would take for a video ref (with Hawkeye too) to clarify a decision.

Sooner we get it the better for me.
What year is it ?

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 agree and i'm all for it. It was very clear from the first replay today that the ball had crossed the line by a good margin. This would have taken the 4th Ref or a 5th (video) Ref less time to decide it than it took the Germans to celebrate the goal which by the way is time that is never compensated for (celebrations that is).
If not video, then at least some line sensors which will tell if the ball has crossed the line or not.

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.

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.

No it's not.

And either way, a perfect mechanical referee - which is what technology would supply - would be detrimental.