Goal-line technology, soccer smartball and instant video replays

[Pingudo]

As we all know FIFA is testing its goal-line technology together with Adidas smartball (soccer balls with microchip inside) at the FIFA U-17 tournament in Peru. Does anybody know how this experiment is progressing? Have they had an opportunity to test it in a controversial call yet? I for one, I'm optimistic about it and hope it gets used at the 2006 WC in Germany! What does everybody else think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4206450.stm

[MoRado]

As we all know FIFA is testing its goal-line technology together with Adidas smartball (soccer balls with microchip inside) at the FIFA U-17 tournament in Peru. Does anybody know how this experiment is progressing? Have they had an opportunity to test it in a controversial call yet? I for one, I'm optimistic about it and hope it gets used at the 2006 WC in Germany! What does everybody else think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4206450.stm

I dunno what to say about this, i mean, it's good that technology is helping soccer, but referee mistakes go along with soccer, it's like part of it, sometimes they help your team and sometimes you just get ********ed by a stupid ref

[Gary V]

I think that where you can use technology to increase the accuracy of calls, without changing the nature and flow of the game, it's a good thing. If the goal-line chip-in-the-ball proves to work out, it should be used in high-level play. I can't see that one tournament is a valid rigorous test, though. How many close calls do you actually see? 1 in 20 games, in 50, 100? To be a proven technology, it would have to perform correctly multiple times. That means a test over hundreds, probably thousands, of games. And make it a "blind" test, supported by video evidence, before letting the refs have the signal device.

I am totally against video review, except for league use in determining sanctions for misconduct. (And for private referee assessment.) Soccer just isn't a game where we can stop action for a while to "check the tape". If you have to stop play to determine if there should have been a stoppage, you have just created that stoppage whether valid or not.

[Pingudo]

Does anybody know if the smartball had an opportunity to be tested in a controversial call?

[sicnarf]

From this article yesterday:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/4364578.stm

"Fifa carried out a trial of the goal-line technology at the Under-17 World Championship in Peru and concluded that further improvements were needed before the system could be used regularly."

It's not entirely clear what they mean by that but I assume it means they had an opportunity to try it

[Toon³]

If it can be used so that it instantly gives an answer then use it. Having some sort of light or indicator that lets the referee know the ball has crossed the line. If it you are going to be waiting around for 5 minutes while it is processed then it needs to be improved.

[Ese_Guy]

From this article yesterday:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/4364578.stm

"Fifa carried out a trial of the goal-line technology at the Under-17 World Championship in Peru and concluded that further improvements were needed before the system could be used regularly."

It's not entirely clear what they mean by that but I assume it means they had an opportunity to try it
Yes, I heard they used it during the U-17 WC, but never had an opportunity to utilize it in a controversial call.

[rangers00]

I dunno what to say about this, i mean, it's good that technology is helping soccer, but referee mistakes go along with soccer, it's like part of it, sometimes they help your team and sometimes you just get ********ed by a stupid ref


It's funny that among all the goal-line controversies that I can remember, all of the decisions favored the home teams. Witness:

- CL semi-final 2005, Liverpool X Chelsea (goal for liverpool)
- Premiership early this year, Man U x Tottenham (no goal for Tottenham)
- 2002 WCQ Uruguay X Brazil (no goal for Brazil)
- a la liga game last season, Real Madrid at home x ??? (no goal for the opposition)

and the mother of all goal-line controversies:

- 1966 World Cup Final, England x West Germany (goal for England)

The Tottenham goal against Man U was simply a deficiency of the game. The linesman and referee were far away from the touch line that they couldn't possibly see whether the goal crossed the line or not. And the linesman was supposed to be away from the touch line because that's where the last defender was. Long shots that barely crossed the line have no way to be fairly judged by the officials whether they have crossed the line or not, unless there is an additonal official at the goal line, something like a goal judge.

And why can such a no-goal decision only favor the home team? Because if the shot is made by the home team (Man U) and crossed the line, the crowd would have roared. That would at least affect the referee's and linesman's decision. Only when the shot was made by the away team (Tottenham) that the crowd remain silent. The ref and linesman had no way to tell.

[Popol Vuh]

I think they should do it like american football, get every play under review, and give every coach a red flag to challenge plays. :p

[lamrof]

I think they should do it like american football, get every play under review, and give every coach a red flag to challenge plays. :p

You don't throw flags and use micorphones in soccer, just as you don't use yellow and red cards in Basketball. Also, futbol needs flow, you cannot stop it for every play as you specified above.

First off, futbol is truely international, 2/3 of the world cannot easily implement instant video analysis, this should be confined to major tournaments such as ANC, Worldcup, (not the preliminaries)

Video review should only be requested when the following cases occur and only 1 time a game with a risk of a penalty awarded if no issue found. (with refree right to refuse to see video)

a goal is denied.
a Penality is awared.
a player is red carded

I think you got my drift. For instant video check the issue has to be something otherwise can change the outcome of the match where the refree is uncertain. I think this will help refrees much. What else can you think of?

[Pingudo]

Video review should only be requested when the following cases occur

a goal is denied.
a Penality is awared.
a player is red carded

What else can you think of?


An offside resulting in a goal.

That's a start. Maybe they could have the fourth official doing the instant video replay, and for the cases mentioned above the official should have an answer within 10/15 seconds (in most cases it's pretty obvious) while the ball is not in play and the other players are arguing with the ref. And I agree, at first, it should only be used in important tournaments such as the World Cup. Maybe in another 20 years it can be used elsewhere.

[prymetyme]

I dunno what to say about this, i mean, it's good that technology is helping soccer, but referee mistakes go along with soccer, it's like part of it, sometimes they help your team and sometimes you just get ********ed by a stupid ref

i agree, ref's are part of the game and I dont like this whole microchip in the ball. It will take away from some of the flare of the game, especially from the players because who is going to argue a call that is electroincally proven to be right? I hope they dont use this in the worldcup or the premiership. Ligue 1 can have it.

[toon_soldier_86]

It's funny that among all the goal-line controversies that I can remember, all of the decisions favored the home teams. Witness:

- CL semi-final 2005, Liverpool X Chelsea (goal for liverpool)
- Premiership early this year, Man U x Tottenham (no goal for Tottenham)
- 2002 WCQ Uruguay X Brazil (no goal for Brazil)
- a la liga game last season, Real Madrid at home x ??? (no goal for the opposition)

and the mother of all goal-line controversies:

- 1966 World Cup Final, England x West Germany (goal for England)

The Tottenham goal against Man U was simply a deficiency of the game. The linesman and referee were far away from the touch line that they couldn't possibly see whether the goal crossed the line or not. And the linesman was supposed to be away from the touch line because that's where the last defender was. Long shots that barely crossed the line have no way to be fairly judged by the officials whether they have crossed the line or not, unless there is an additonal official at the goal line, something like a goal judge.

And why can such a no-goal decision only favor the home team? Because if the shot is made by the home team (Man U) and crossed the line, the crowd would have roared. That would at least affect the referee's and linesman's decision. Only when the shot was made by the away team (Tottenham) that the crowd remain silent. The ref and linesman had no way to tell.

u forgot the goal!! the alan sh. header against wigan, AT WIGAN!!!

Nufc 0-1 wigan