Uh-oh: https://streamable.com/7jqa1 I'm trying to find a good summation of the whole story, because there is at least one big hole in this account: http://www.marca.com/en/football/international-football/2017/12/17/5a367efb468aeb66228b45f0.html The story says it took 9 minutes to disallow the goal. It doesn't say if play was restarted or not during that time period. Presumably, it wasn't, otherwise annulling the goal would be a violation of the LOTG. So if play wasn't restarted, under what grounds was there a 9-minute delay? Also, what would prompt the referee team to question the GLT in the first place? And how did they confirm the GLT malfunctioned? There are some blog comments that said the referee checked a video replay, even though VAR isn't active in Ligue 1 yet (it's active in the Coupe de France). No matter what happened, this is a disaster that reminds us technology is not infallible.
Sorry, I thought this thread was about the disallowed touchdown in the Steelers-Patriots game last night. In the video, doesn't the ref hold up his wrist (which I guess means the first shot is under review?) prior to the second shot?
Nothing is "under review." He's pointed to his watch--after he whistles--because GLT has buzzed him to inform him that the first shot was over the line. Pointing to the watch is a way of selling the call when GLT is in place. And, yes, since the whistle goes before the second shot goes in, the "second" goal therefore cannot legally be awarded. But that's just icing on the cake that compounds the disaster. The bigger problem is Hawkeye apparently malfunctioned and awarded a ghost goal. Of course, how the referee team figured that out is the big question.
Also in the video the GLT/no-goal replay animation stops while the ball is bouncing upward again. We all know in that situation the ball is furthest over the goal line when it hits the ground, although in this case it appears that it was not a goal. WTF happened with the watch?
Yup. I'm very interested in learning what happened here. Because either there is a procedure to overturn a GLT decision or there isn't. And I've always presumed there isn't. And if there isn't, yet this was overturned, how is that fair to the team that scored the "goal" (irrespective of the fact that the existence of GLT is the only reason the certain "second" goal wasn't scored)?
Thanks, for that. Thought I would be safe from reliving that debacle from last night here, but Nooooo right back in my face again.
L'equipe's commentary confirms play was held up while the goal/no goal was still in question: "43rd minute - There will therefore be 8 minutes of additional time following the interruption of the game following the canceled goal of Suk." Indeed, the half ended at 45+8 minutes. And Troyes' club website has, in French, a quote from the referee François Letexier (at 28, the youngest referee in Ligue 1). Someone else can probably translate it better but this is how I read it: "I am going to try to explain what happened. There is indeed the ball rebounding off the bar. The watch did not vibrate right away, it took a few seconds to react. When it vibrated, I immediately stopped the game. Given the delay between the rebound and the reaction of the watch I applied a protocol that allows us with match delegates to verify the reliability of the goal-line technology system. I had a doubt about the facts, and about the delay between the time of the rebound and the moment the watch vibrated. Communication took some time to be done between goal-line technicians and the delegates. The first information they transmitted to me is that goal was valid. Amiens then put down a technical reservation (???). The match delegates then joined the goal-line technicians again and they returned with their decision (no goal). Since I had whistled (stopped play), I was forced to apply the rules and have Amiens restart play. What is certain is that the device was faulty and posed problems. In the second half, we made the decision to neutralize the goal-line technology."
And so for around 33 minutes in the first half they played with GLT, the remainder of the first maybe, maybe not, and the second half without GLT. Why not have an AAR at one goal and not the other? Let's change our techniques during the match, huh? Could lead to nothing but bigger and bigger problems.
Well, what if they had had AARs instead and one got injured and was unable to continue past the 33rd minute?
Does anyone know what tech is used in league une? If it were Hawkeye then there is of course a recording of the relevant views...
No idea. The Marca headline says "hawk-eye" but that could just as well just be clueless journalism tbh.
I think that's what it must be, because the French Ligue Un uses a system called Goal Control, which is from a German company. It's similar to Hawkeye in that it uses multiple cameras to plot the ball's track but it's a different company and a different system.
Just discovered that this is not the first time this particular system has failed. There was a similar incident in a game back in September between Rennes and Caen. http://www.beinsports.com/my/ligue-1/video/the-first-failure-of-the-goal-line-technology/667458 In fact, according to the French sports publication L'Équipe, there may have been as many as 7 malfunctions of the system so far, including goals that should have been given but weren't. Goal Control has claimed that the brightness and frequency of the LED lighting used in the Troyes stadium caused the system to malfunction in this latest incident. The French league has already told the manufacturers of the system, Goal Control GmbH, to recalibrate their systems to avoid this issue in future and notified them that they will not renew their contract next season unless the problems are resolved.
It's worth noting then that GoalControl is the system that FIFA uses in the World Cup. It's rather disturbing to hear that this isn't the first time it's had an issue.
Two thoughts on this. Based on the referee's explanation, I don't think he could have really done much differently. He recognized that there seemed to be an issue with the system and followed accepted match control protocol in Ligue 1 (at least if that protocol is consistent with his statement) to resolve the issue while adding the appropriate amount of time. All things considered, he seems to have handled the situation exactly as he should have done. Goal line assistants would have had a good view of this and should have been able to advise the referee on the correct goal/no goal decision.
If GLT is in use, would AARs be expected to look for that, or would they be expected to have their eyes elsewhere for potential issues?
Would that be Pat Partridge? A top class English FIFA referee who was at the 1978 World Cup, among other tournaments. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ul-and-was-one-of-the-first-high-9852383.html PH