Technology and Football

[Aikiwolf]

Seeing as the General Wolves thread is starting to be overrun with this discussion...

I contend that football is a better sport with the mistakes left in, it creates excitement, debate and interest in the game. The element of luck allows teams to pull off a lucky victory against bigger clubs and technology is simply a way to maintain the status quo rather than improve the game.

As football is inherently unfair, I. E. Bigger clubs get more cash and can buy better players, tech in the game won't solve anything but it will make the game more sterile.

Once you all agree with me then football will be better off ;0)

 

[Trips]

The ball crossing the line is a matter of fact, not a matter of perception. I'm more than happy for goal-line technology.

There will still be errors in the game - offside decisions, penalty decisions, fouls, red card v yellow card etc.

There will still be these issues to debate. But the ball being over the line is a matter of fact, we have the technology to prove it so absolutely we should use it

 

[Johnny75]

Seeing as the General Wolves thread is starting to be overrun with this discussion...

I contend that football is a better sport with the mistakes left in, it creates excitement, debate and interest in the game. The element of luck allows teams to pull off a lucky victory against bigger clubs and technology is simply a way to maintain the status quo rather than improve the game.

As football is inherently unfair, I. E. Bigger clubs get more cash and can buy better players, tech in the game won't solve anything but it will make the game more sterile.

Once you all agree with me then football will be better off ;0)

I'll put the same thing in here:

That's a very cynical view. I understand the human element but why would you not want to see the rules adhered to?

FWIW, I think we should have a rugby type video replay system whereby the ref can ask a 4th official for a specific view. It wouldn't delay the game anymore than it currently is and it would allow the ref to not feel too much pressure in letting the game go on and then go back for a decision.

And rugby do not have a problem with this, in fact you could say it adds to the drama. And as all professional football matches are filmed (even those in the conference) it's not as if the infrastructure isn't there. The quality might not be tip top lower down the pyramid but that could be said of referees also.

Rugby, tennis and cricket, American football and baseball have no problem ramping up the drama and then getting the decision right (most of the time), why would you want to play a game where a bad decision could win/ lose you the match? There is no shortage of commentating on these decision in the various booths during and after the game and there is more chat about the actual game rather the man in the middle.

I would argue the quality of the game of rugby and tennis has also gone up as the game has become about getting better rather than trying to be sly or lucky not the other way around, and wouldn't you rather be talking about the football and the quality of it rather than blaming a referee or lamenting poor luck?

 

[The Bear]

Mistakes that cost teams games and points isn't fun or adding any spice to the sport. It needs sorting out and getting right in the interest of fairness.

Technology has no bias so will make things fairer towards the lower clubs IMO. Big clubs generally get any borderline decisions against smaller clubs. If technology makes sure those smaller clubs get the penalty, handball, offside or whatever decisions against the giants then we'll be all the better for it. Refs are biased enough (without knowing it) already. Anything that helps even the playing field is a good thing.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Give me better refs ahead of technology, although of course it isn't an either/or debate.

It isn't lack of video evidence which causes David Coote to not give us a penalty at Villa Park or Craig Pawson to not send Mitrovic off last weekend. It's bottling decisions.

 

[Bit on the shaggies]

Rugby ref's can ask the TMO to look at any incident whilst letting play continue, I think that that would be very useful in football and very easy to implement.

And don't forget, TMOs can still get things wrong, just look at Mark Cueto's disallowed try in the 2007 RWC final...

 

[Langers]

Give me better refs ahead of technology, although of course it isn't an either/or debate.

It isn't lack of video evidence which causes David Coote to not give us a penalty at Villa Park or Craig Pawson to not send Mitrovic off last weekend. It's bottling decisions.

Absolutely this and it'd help to have a bit of clarity for certain rules to help officials.

The interpretation of the offside law is a real problem for example.

Ambiguity and a poor standard of refereeing are two issues that need addressing before we look to technology.

 

[Langers]

I've copied this over from the other thread too as it's a lovely post in which I make some smashing points and might get lost over there:

Personally I'm only in favour of such technology being introduced as long as it's fed down to all levels. What makes the Prem and the Championship more important to the clubs involved with them as opposed to lower/non league sides? Aside from money as TSB mentions?

Stourbridge might be the victim of a poor call by an official that robs them of promotion this season which could be avoided with goal line technology. Why should they suffer but we don't? That would be catastrophic for Stourbridge. Sure, the sums are different but the consequences are no different.

I know it's not realistic but it's not a level playing field so whereas I'm not totally against it, I do appreciate the other side of the debate.

 

[Johnny75]

I've copied this over from the other thread too as it's a lovely post in which I make some smashing points and might get lost over there:

Personally I'm only in favour of such technology being introduced as long as it's fed down to all levels. What makes the Prem and the Championship more important to the clubs involved with them as opposed to lower/non league sides? Aside from money as TSB mentions?

Stourbridge might be the victim of a poor call by an official that robs them of promotion this season which could be avoided with goal line technology. Why should they suffer but we don't? That would be catastrophic for Stourbridge. Sure, the sums are different but the consequences are no different.

I know it's not realistic but it's not a level playing field so whereas I'm not totally against it, I do appreciate the other side of the debate.

The important distinction there is professionalism. At the professional level league rules are different (not the game) so it would be a league by league basis not done on a game basis. In much the same way as you have different substitution numbers or age ranges for different competitions

 

[Lord Knows]

Seeing as the General Wolves thread is starting to be overrun with this discussion...

I contend that football is a better sport with the mistakes left in, it creates excitement, debate and interest in the game. The element of luck allows teams to pull off a lucky victory against bigger clubs and technology is simply a way to maintain the status quo rather than improve the game.

As football is inherently unfair, I. E. Bigger clubs get more cash and can buy better players, tech in the game won't solve anything but it will make the game more sterile.

Once you all agree with me then football will be better off ;0)

I agree completely I like to look on football as a game rather than a business, a game where everyone makes mistakes be that manager, player or official. Let them get on with it dont over-complicate it.

 

[Aikiwolf]

OK, so which scenario is more appealing:

It's the 89th minute of Sutton vs Arsenal and it's 0-0. Arsenal have been terrible but Sutton haven't been able to score. Sutton pump the ball into the box and the forward gets his head on it. The ball crashes against the crossbar and down onto the line. The lino flags and the goal is given. Football fans up and down the country talk about the goal for days, was it in was it not. Sutton have a moment in the sun and are hero's!

Contrasted with, the striker gets his head to the ball, it bounces on the line, ref checks his watch and no goal. Arsenal win the replay 4-0.

 

[Aikiwolf]

I agree completely I like to look on football as a game rather than a business, a game where everyone makes mistakes be that manager, player or official. Let them get on with it dont over-complicate it.

It's my view that the mistakes make the game more interesting. I remember watching a game just after vid tech came in (something dull like Everton vs Stoke), the first half was dreadful and the only incident was a single shot bouncing on the line. At half time the panel showed it and H#ddle said "no goal, we'd normally analyse this but..." they then all sat there in silence. Magic.

 

[The Bear]

OK, so which scenario is more appealing:

It's the 89th minute of Sutton vs Arsenal and it's 0-0. Arsenal have been terrible but Sutton haven't been able to score. Sutton pump the ball into the box and the forward gets his head on it. The ball crashes against the crossbar and down onto the line. The lino flags and the goal is given. Football fans up and down the country talk about the goal for days, was it in was it not. Sutton have a moment in the sun and are hero's!

Contrasted with, the striker gets his head to the ball, it bounces on the line, ref checks his watch and no goal. Arsenal win the replay 4-0.

I choose the ref rules it out correctly and Arsenal win the replay. That is right and no-one can complain that a decision ruined the game/result.

 

[Parkins left foot]

OK, so which scenario is more appealing:

It's the 89th minute of Sutton vs Arsenal and it's 0-0. Arsenal have been terrible but Sutton haven't been able to score. Sutton pump the ball into the box and the forward gets his head on it. The ball crashes against the crossbar and down onto the line. The lino flags and the goal is given. Football fans up and down the country talk about the goal for days, was it in was it not. Sutton have a moment in the sun and are hero's!

Contrasted with, the striker gets his head to the ball, it bounces on the line, ref checks his watch and no goal. Arsenal win the replay 4-0.

Alternative scenario:

Wolves leading 1 - 0 v Chelsea in the 89th minute having put up a tremendous backs to the wall performance after scoring in the 10th min. Chelsea cross is headed onto the bar & down onto the line after which Hause boots it into the Steve Bull stand.

Lino flags over the line & the goal stands despite all of the commentators, pundits & slomo replay after the game showing that it didn't. Chelsea win the replay 6 - 0

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

You can turn that argument around anyway, Chesterfield got done out of a goal against Boro in 97, they'd probably have won and gone through to the final if that had been given as it should have been.

I don't mind goal line technology so long as it's funded properly by the authorities because it's instant. Really uneasy about anything else.

 

[The Bear]

Anyone who isn't on the side of the correct decision being made, is talking bollocks frankly.

 

[Lord Knows]

It's my view that the mistakes make the game more interesting. I remember watching a game just after vid tech came in (something dull like Everton vs Stoke), the first half was dreadful and the only incident was a single shot bouncing on the line. At half time the panel showed it and H#ddle said "no goal, we'd normally analyse this but..." they then all sat there in silence. Magic.

Its never bothered me when officials make mistakes as with the Newcastle goal last week, shit happens get on with it, don't cry about it.

 

[Aikiwolf]

I purposefully avoided chatting about Wolves decisions - we should always have them given in our favour ��

I appreciate the decision can change, the point was that the tech means that there is reduced scope for excitement. Which is what football is about imv.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

It should be about entertainment, but if you're relying on an officiating mistake to provide entertainment then surely that's a shocking verdict on the match you've been watching?

In a perfect world the officials peformance should be all but irrelevant in that respect, they should be there merely to enable the game itself to provide the entertainment rather than provide it themselves.

 

[Lord Knows]

I purposefully avoided chatting about Wolves decisions - we should always have them given in our favour ��

I appreciate the decision can change, the point was that the tech means that there is reduced scope for excitement. Which is what football is about imv.

The one benefit for me is if it helps keep games eleven vs eleven because I lose interest when sides go down to ten men.