If the referee doesn't give the goal, there is no reason to stop playing. The appeal has to be made immediately to the 4th official just like they do it in tennis but without stopping the game. If they can see the whole ball DID cross the line all he has to do is to give a sign to the referee and a goal would be added to the score. A team can also appeal a goal that they think is not legitimate. If it's clear from the sensors that the whole ball didn't clear the line, then take away the goal. Each team only get one challenge each. They do the same thing in hockey. It's simple.
I was just kidding around. I'm really quite ok with soccer being the last sports bastion for luddites. I'm happy to be one; I'll rag at the refs and let the game roll on... But hey, two points: I didn't mean to hijack the thread, and two, what thread? I mean really, the Algarve is pretty much Over. Its the silly season indeed if this is the most active thread in the women's soccer forum...
You are too freaking dumb to even know what is dumb and what is not. Case 1: 1) Some people said Pia did SOMETHING in Algarve. 2) You said Pia did nothing. Without any supporting data, these are just opinions. Neither are really dumb, just unsupported opinions. If either side offers some data then we can discuss it, but that is for another lesson. Case 2, your reasoning: 1) Review is used in ice hockey and tennis 2) The buck and tennis ball traveling much faster and much smaller than soccer. 3) (Therefore) reviewing should be used in soccer also. That is called a dumb deduction. Case 3, your opinion: Review (to score a goal or not) could be conducted in soccer while the game continues. Let's say there are 10 minutes left in a game. If you award the goal, the score would be tied. How should a team play the 10 minutes without knowing if the score is tied or if they are behind? Don't say it should take only a minute or 2 to review. We've seen many replays taking much longer to decide. What happens if the clock runs out and you have not finished your review? You are gonna decide who wins by watching a TV monitor? Even if you concluded the review early, what do we do? Blow the whistle and restart with a kick-off if it was a goal? You've turned the beautiful game into a farce. That is the reason it's a dumb opinion.
It's funny when slow people call others dumb. It's a lot easier to review a much bigger ball that travels at a much slower pace, I don't really understand why that is so complicated to some people. Time is no problem too. If the review happens after the 79th minute or so. Just stop the game for a minute or two. A minute should be enough. You're talking as if soccer games don't get stopped. Specially when you're watching qualifying games, players start getting injured once they get the lead. Good goals not counted specially in World Cup games just cost teams too much. Most games are won or lost with just one goal difference. No other sport is like that. Not even hockey. You and Pia will get more snow from the Germans in May.
Of course, it's easier to see a bigger ball that travels slower. But that is not the reason to argue that it should be reviewed. It's the reason to argue that maybe there is no need to do so. Let's use an anology, in track, they have photo review of a 100 yd dash, and a marathon is slower, using your reasoning, they should review it also? Do you see how your logic is so backward? Now you are arguing against your own stupid idea to keep the game going while doing the review earlier.
Anybody who thinks I want to see FIFA review contested goals and non-goals because the ball is slower and bigger based on my posts here has to be pathetically SLOOOOOW.
I tend to think that using video to check refs' decisions, other than for whether a goal was scored, would not be a good idea. On the other hand, I think it is questionable to argue that it would not be good for purposes of deciding whether a goal was scored because of how it would delay the flow of games. After all, how often do players fall to the ground writhing and getting the stretchers out, thus delaying the games for several minutes, only to be carted off the field, jump to their feet, and come back into the game at the first opportunity? Although we don't like that, we live with it. It takes very little time, with current technology, to review a tennis line call, which is a similar technology to what could be used for soccer "goal scored or not scored" calls. It is not like the interminable delay you see with American pointy ball, sometimes called American football. "Shotspot" as used by tennis, which seems like it would be fully adaptable to soccer, takes about 10 to 15 seconds to confirm or overturn a call. It seems to me that if the flow of soccer can handle player feigned injuries, then it can handle a 10 to 15 second review of whether a potential game-decider was or was not a goal.