Goal line technology

It doesn't need to be this complex.

Paint a second line inside the goal the width of the ball behind the goal line.
If it touches that second line, you know the ball is across the goal line.
Mount cameras on the goal.
The odds that both lines would be blocked are very small.

A 5th Official has live and recorded view of those cameras. (Lose the AAR's)
Play continues.
If he sees a goal, he notifies the CR.
Play continues with a center off and time is accounted for.
If no goal, play just continues.

 

On the second line thought, which is interesting, but according to LOTG, the ball is a range of circumferences allowed. How often does the ball at the upper levels vary in size?

Not all size 5's are equal.

 

The second line is an interesting idea but would still not solve the issue I feel. Think about it, if the AR is not in position to see it go over the goal line, what is the likely hood he will be able to tell it touched the second line?

If you kept the AARs then it may work, but you still have the issue NHRef brought up that not all balls are created equal.

 

I'm not worried about the AR.
The camera will see the second line.
The odds of both lines being blocked are very slim.

 

True, but . . . the 1" difference in circumfrence permitted in the LOTG creates less than a 1/3 of an inch of difference in the diameter of the ball. Adn at the levels this would be used, there's going to be a competition ball that is going to be uniform.

(Of course if implemented in AYSO the difference grows to almost 1/2" since AYSO permits a size 5 ball to have a circumfrence as small as 26.5 instead of LOTG 27 -- this is an AYSO difference that never made any sense to me - anyone have an explanation?)

I'm not sure it's a crazy idea, but I think the posts are often more useful tool than the line in calling these plays -- are we pondering a second post 8.6-8.9" behind the other? that would seem likely to cause far more problems than it woudl ever solve

 

How does this "second line" theory work when the ball is crossing the plane in mid-air?

 

The cameras would be mounted on the cross bar.
In mid air would not be a problem as the view is down.

 

But wouldn't they have to be mounted next to the crossbar to give the correct angle?

 

No, mounted on the cross bar.
some looking straight down
some on an extender looking straight down on the second line
Split screen viewer.

 

Before the horse dies, here's my $.02:

This is only ever a controversy if the video evidence shows the opposite of what was called on the field. So, the solution does not need to be NASA perfect. It only needs to be as good as any other video evidence.

1 video camera at each corner of the field, sighted down the goal line would solve everything IMHO. (In the rare case that video is available from directly above the goal, that would need to be added, I suppose.)

I can't wait for the day when one of these ball-position sensing machines says no goal, and there is video evidence of the ball over the line. oops.

 

I have thought that a laser wall would be a good way. Set up a scanning laser a ball's width behind the frame. If laser light is seen on the ball, it's a goal. On on either side, mounted behind the goal and pointing across and down to keep from blinding fans, should do it. It's not a sensor, but a visual aid. Perhaps balls could be made to fluoresce in response, so you could examine the ball immediately after if there's any question.

Too bad stadia are filled with people with lasers...

 

With the ubiquity of fly-wire set-ups in every situation where this would ever remotely be implemented, I imagine a directly above camera would be the rule, rather than the exception.

My biggest gripe is that this will inevitably move the basics of how a match is officiated into a world split between big money leagues and places and everywhere else. Even AARs are probably within the reach of, say, well-heeled youth tournaments or small association professional competition (places where you may see 4ths already). Currently used tech like ref talk and beeper flags make a difference, but don't seem to create a discontinuity in the way that these would.

For me, part of the magic of soccer (playing and reffing) is that what I'm doing at the park on Sunday is pretty much identical to what the big boys did on Saturday.

 

I suspect AARs aren't going to expand beyond the top leagues -- they're only worth having if the referee respects their judgment. And I think beyond the top leagues, you're going to have a hard time getting refs with enough experience to be useful as AARs to be willing to do it instead of the other refereeing that they might be doing. YMMV.

 

How do you account for incidents happening between the goal that wasn't called and the 5th Official reviewing the play and deciding there was a goal? What if it takes long enough that on a counter the other team scores? Take their goal off the board and award a goal to the other team? While technically correct that's not going to sit well.

That's one of the main reasons I'm against replay but in favor of goal-line technology. It needs to be instantaneous, not subject to how long it takes a human to review it.

 

Not that it doesn't happen, but a review should take seconds.
Maybe 30 at the most.
The odds of another goal that quick are slim.

 

Why even allow a counter??

If the call is too close, the referee stops play to review. Booth official reviews in less than 30 seconds. If it is no goal, then the restart is a GK - every single time regardless of who last touched it. Add 30 seconds to stoppage time. It's not that difficult.

How many of these happen in a game? In a season?

Lastly, I'll be interested to see how this impacts that u16g game...

 

The board was quick to point out that the technology was allowed, not mandated. I suspect , though, that they meant that it would be used at the highest levels.

They even cited that in kids leagues there was one certified official and parents running lines, so the technology would be used as appropriate to the level of competition.

 

Each u10 team has to supply two ARYMs ("Assistant Referee Yuppie Moms") who stand on either side of the goal posts. Any time the ball is close to the goal, they record video on the smart phone and show the R their video when he asks. (Only one ARYM will be used for u8 games . . .)

 

Now THAT is ridiculous..

 

Okay, you can do that and submit it to FIFA. Should be easy enough.

 

Yeah, we'll the only problem with that is that the latest balls have had fewer panels.

 

Here is my suggestion.
Leave the game the way it is!!!!!!!!

 

But first they post the picture to facebook, because nothing has officially happened until it's out there.

 

Ugh, that's even a worse idea. So if the ball rebounds off the crossbar, just on the line (maybe over) and then to an attacker in front of net who finishes the play the actual goal should be waved off because they have to review the maybe goal to see if it went in, and if it didn't then the defense gets a goal kick?