http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organ...0256/index.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_news Here is the agenda. It is at 16:30 CET (I believe that is 11:30 EDT)
^^^ It's actually 10:30am EDT. PDT is nine hours behind CET so take away three hours and... http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ Basically one hour from this posting ("at the earliest").
Hmmm... well, I'm also going by the recent EUROs. The final kicked off at 20:45 CET. http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/season=2012/matches/round=15175/match=2003351/index.html Here in California (PDT) it was 11:45am, which would've meant 2:45pm EDT. And the previous link I gave has New York 6 hours behind Zurich. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
But that is because both Zurich and New York have asterisks "* means the time shown has been adjusted for daylight saving time(DST) or summer time" However, you are failing to recognize that currently, Zurich is operating under CEST which is UTC+2:00. But the meeting is listed as CET (no accounting for summer time). So, while the difference between NYC (EDT) and Zurich (CEST) is 6 hours, the difference between EDT and CET is only 5.
Then how do you account for the EURO kickoff time I explained? If you're in the U.S., what time did the 20:45 games start where you watched them? Better yet, what time is it currently in Zurich/CET (CEST)?
This is what I know: It's currently 10:47 a.m. here on the east coast (of Canada, which could make a difference).
It's 7:57am as I post this, but according to my calculations the press briefing could have started at 7:30am PDT "at the earliest". If someone knows the current time in Zurich it would solve the matter. As it is I've been refreshing Sport Billy's link just in case.
US Eastern time zone (EDT or EST) to CET is always 6 hours, except for a brief period where we adjust our clocks before (or after) they adjust theirs. Those adjustments are obviously in the spring and fall. I was just there for games (and happened to fly through Zurich on the way home). It's 6 hours (7 in Ukraine, but that's a different matter).
Tbh, I've rarely seen the CEST acronym used. To me it's always CET even in the "Summer Time". The UEFA link I provided above, for example.
^^^ lol Standby now gone and video of conference room up. Looks like media personnel have entered and waiting for FIFA officials.
So, goal-line technology approved, to be first used by FIFA in Tokyo for the CWC (but other competitions are free to use it at their leisure). Plans by FIFA to use it at the World Cup. Interesting that four Laws will have to be amended (1, 2, 5, 10... I wonder how Law V will be amended? it would seem and I would hope that there has to be a stipulation where the referee can overrule the technology if it blatantly malfunctions!) AARs approved as an additional form of officials, to be incorporated in the LOTG. I would imagine that means they are now a guarantee for the World Cup (would be incredibly odd to sanction a type of official and not use it at the top tournament in the world). So the ramifications, in the immediate-term, would seem to be for the refereeing trios pushing to make the World Cup. From a long-term perspective, I wonder what the first domestic league (if any) to use AARs would be. I'd keep an eye on France, for several reason... Platini's influence but also the hope of developing more UEFA-level officials. Possibly Spain, too. I think England will be reluctant, at least at first. Interesting that the use of radio communication is finally being incorporated into the LOTG. And then the headscarf approval, which was to be expected. http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organ...541/index.html?intcmp=newsreader_news_caption
The IFAB board was clear that the ultimate decision is still the referee's. They cited the possibility of a hand ball or other foul as possible reasons. Curiously, although they approved AAR's, the board declined to state whether AAR's would be used in The World Cup, saying that they have not yet decided, along with the directors of officials, whether it would be appropriate. The direct response was " good question, we don't know yet". They then went into a discussion that there a costs for both officials and technology. And the board seemed to think that the Premier league might be the first major league to use it, as they are keen on it. They said as early as the middle of the 2012-2013 season is not out of the question. The bundesligue is more resistant to the technology, they indicated. It would seem that if it is to be used in the Confederations cup, they need to start soon. And I was a little disappointed that they said the public would not see what the technology shows.
I'm not sure there is any Law that actually needs to be amended. I suppose that you could argue that Law 1 lists everything that may be permitted on the posts, so to attach anything requires a permission in Law 1. I don't see what needs to be amendedin Law 2 -- "other suitable material" would seem to cover any change made to the ball. I don't see what needs to be changed to Law 5 -- I suspect that, if anything, the I&G will add that in competitions where it is permitted, the R may base his decision as to whether a ball scored on information from the technology. But since Law 5 doesn't explicityly prohibit it now, I don't think the Law actually needs to be amended, any more than it has to be amended to deal with different kinds of watches that referees carry. Nor do I see any change to Law 10 -- the ball still scores when it crosses the line, the R just has a new aid in deciding when that happened.
Good. I bet that's just because they haven't formally adopted it. FIFA had to say 'yes' for the IFAB to adopt them into the Laws. FIFA would look really foolish if they thought AARs were good enough for the masses, but then not use them at the World Cup. Fourth officials and Reserve ARs get used at the World Cup. It will be the same with AARs. I have very little doubt about that. The thing about the EPL being the first was in regards to the technology, right? On that, I don't disagree. But on using AARs, I think the EPL will be one of the last leagues to go that route (if any domestic leagues do). They already have trouble spreading around the assignments and using--what they view as--their elite level referees without overworking them. You can't start taking referees off the Championship and First Division so they can serve as AARs. EPL won't go that route until they are almost forced to do so. I think France has a few different political workings at play, which might make them the first league to do it. But all federations, in fact, face the same problems. England's just appear to be more pronounced because there is so much scrutiny. Club World Cup... actually this December. Confederations Cup is next year.
Does the Hawk-eye system (the nested-in-goal-post trio of cameras) that's what they approved, correct?) have a beeper watch the Ref & AR can wear?
Not the first time IFAB's been wrong (And, yes, obviously, I didn't read the article and incorrectly inferred that was your perspective. Somone nees to tell IFAB that sometimes less is more . . .) Matches the ill-concieved DB amendment
They said that no technology was disapproved. There will be tests and evaluations at 5,12, and 20 months, that Hawkeye and Goalref technologies might be installed side-by side for these tests, and the ruling did not rule out any other companies or technologies, just that any used must pass some sort of IFAB or FIFA testing( not sure which body would do it). I expect it would be similar to the testing that now happens with artificial turf testing, and the companies or venues would have to pay for future approval. I have no idea about who is paying for the Testing of the technology from the two front runner companies. They said that they expect technology to get better and cheaper. Presumably, the "technology ref" would inform the ref by the electronic means also approved. Uefa also has the first report I have seen in print, and they mentioned it had the approval of Howard Webb and another ref( forget who) so there is input from the guys on the field.