How Scotland's proposal to introduce goal line technology was defeated by Blatter
in [World Football]
|
Prev: The WC draw is a joke. Neither of JPN or PAR deserve to be in QF, but GER-ENG or ESP-POR must eliminate each other!
Next: World Cup games single thread - [R] after round of 16
From: *skriptis, European Patriot on 29 Jun 2010 18:40 "Insane Ranter" <logwyn(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1f1aa36a-da25-478d-b55d-46d8f442d29a(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On Jun 29, 5:58 pm, "*skriptis, European Patriot" <skrip...(a)post.t- com.hr> wrote: > "Paul C" <p...(a)thersgb.net> wrote in message > > news:88v60kFdr0U5(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > > Gordon Smith watched the World Cup being plunged into farce when Frank > > Lampard was denied a clear goal and shook his head in disbelief at > > FIFA's > > refusal to allow technology to help the game. > > > The former SFA chief was aghast as TV pictures confirmed the England > > midfielder's shot to be a yard over the line in the last-16 encounter > > with > > Germany. > > > Referee Jorge Larrionda and assistant Mauricio Espinosa didn't have the > > aid of footage to help them and denied a goal which would have squared > > the > > game at 2-2 just before halftime in Bloemfontein. For Smith it was > > another > > kick in the teeth after seeing his proposals to prevent such a scandal > > booted into touch by FIFA just four months ago. > > > In one of his final acts in SFA office he led the charge to a meeting of > > the International Football Association Board in Zurich bidding to bring > > the use of goal-line technology into use. > > > He voted in favour along with his English counterparts but was thwar ted > > when the Welsh and Northern Irish associations voted with FIFA to reject > > the motion. FIFA subsequently explained the rejection of the proposal in > > terms of maintaining the human element in the way that games are > > handled. > > > Sepp Blatter's statement included: "No matter which technology is > > applied > > at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. > > This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to > > give it to someone else? Global "The application of modern technologies > > can be costly and therefore not applicable on a global level. We've > > close > > to 900 preliminary matches for the World Cup and the same rules need to > > be > > applied in all matches. > > > "If the IFAB had approved goal-line technology, what would prevent the > > approval of technology for other aspects of the game? Every decision > > would > > soon be questioned. Football is a dynamic game that cannot be stopped in > > order to review a decision." > > > Smith left the meeting in shock and could not help but glance a knowing > > eye back as the latest rumpus kicked off and also wondered why money was > > wasted in trying to develop a system which would never be used. > > > He said: "We voted as a body for goal-line technology but the argument > > from Mr Blatter and FIFA was two-fold. First of all, they felt it was > > taking away from the refereeing. > > > "I had to wonder why they'd experimented for years in testing goal-line > > technology in the first place. They worked and worked on it and > > perfected > > it, only for it to be rejected on the basis it did not fit in as it was > > too technical and taking over football. > > > "To me, it wasn't taking over and Sunday proved it. The officials were > > not > > in a position to make a judgment on the shot because they were not in > > line. You cannot give a goal when you are not sure but is a referee ever > > going to be sure when a ball bounces down from the bar in the way it > > did? > > "The only method to get that right is technology. The second argument > > from > > FIFA was we could not implement it right through the game. It is clear > > they like everything to be right through the game at all different > > levels > > but I don't agree. > > > "If that was the case, do we do away with floodlights? Not every ground > > has them. Do we do away with the electronic subs board because you don't > > have them at games on a Sunday morning? > > > "Cameras which showed the incident perfectly on Sunday and the other > > technology worked on was the chip in the ball which sets off a buzzer to > > the referee when it enters the goal. That was rejected on the basis it > > was > > not accurate and not up to speed but it was proved to be accurate. > > > "It was tried, tested and proved to work. > > > "A lot of money was spent by a company and it was private money. They > > invested a lot into the plan and lost out when FIFA decided they did not > > want it. > > > "It kept going back to the human element. Not to take away from the > > referees and assistants and not to undermine them. Ask yourself this, > > who > > is being undermined in the aftermath of the England game? The referee > > and > > his assistant, that's who." > > > Smith also had a response for Blatter's suggestions about the > > never-ending > > nature of disputes and constant disruptions in the game. > > > He said: "The argument I had was a team could have been limited in their > > chances to ask for a decision to be looked at. For example, in tennis, > > the > > players get three chances per set to ask for a review. Perhaps an idea > > of > > two technical reviews per game, per team would work. That means you know > > the game cannot be halted on any more than four occasions. I put forward > > an idea like this some time ago. It was also rejected. > > > "I also had an argument that the extra officials might have worked. If > > that was going to be an alternative that would have been acceptable. > > Extra > > officials were used in the Europa League. > > > "Had one of those officials been on the goalpost he would have been in > > position to make the decision on Lampard. That would be an acceptable > > way > > forward." > > > In the end FIFA accepted no proposals and Smith doesn't see the > > situation > > changing under the current regime. > > > He said: "It's a big issue today because of the England match but if it > > doesn't happen again in the tournament it wi l l be forgotten. > > > "It may even have been a bigger factor had the score finished 2-1 for > > Germany. It would then have been a major factor. But the fact it > > finished > > 4-1 will help sweep it under the carpet. > > > "That is not right but that is the way it will be." > > Makes no sense to involve technology, especially reviews. > > Blatter said it, in the end, someone would have to decide what's wrong and > what's not and decide in real time.....that would kill football. >Someone in the end would still decide. Yes, and when a on court referee does it, no time is lost, no interuption is made, the footbal remains what it is. Sure, he can make mistake, but all people can.
From: felangey on 29 Jun 2010 18:59 The answer I think it a big green light behind the goal. The goal line technology they have been working on involves two forcefields either side of the goal line, so instantly it is known when the ball crosses the line. Technology wired to light.....ball goes over....light shines green.........goal. No interuption to play.
From: Bob on 29 Jun 2010 19:07 Paul C wrote: > "*skriptis, European Patriot" <skriptis(a)post.t-com.hr> wrote in > message news:i0dq9c$15g$1(a)ss408.t-com.hr... > >> >> Makes no sense to involve technology, especially reviews. >> >> Blatter said it, in the end, someone would have to decide what's >> wrong and what's not and decide in real time.....that would kill >> football. >> > > How would it ruin football? Goal line technology might be referred to > once every twenty matches. Somebody cited numbers from a FIFA study in the french newsgroup and there was controversy about whether the ball crossed the goal line for 1 match in 10, which seems unexpectedly high.
From: Paul C on 29 Jun 2010 19:05 "felangey" <nobody(a)home.com> wrote in message news:88vc72FgjuU1(a)mid.individual.net... > The answer I think it a big green light behind the goal. The goal line > technology they have been working on involves two forcefields either side > of the goal line, so instantly it is known when the ball crosses the line. > Technology wired to light.....ball goes over....light shines > green.........goal. No interuption to play. That wouldn't have determined whether or not the ball crossed the line in the Italy-Slovakia match since the defender was also crossing the line.
From: Paul C on 29 Jun 2010 19:08
"Bob" <Bob(a)Bob.com> wrote in message news:88vcfsFi51U1(a)mid.individual.net... > Paul C wrote: >> "*skriptis, European Patriot" <skriptis(a)post.t-com.hr> wrote in >> message news:i0dq9c$15g$1(a)ss408.t-com.hr... >> >>> >>> Makes no sense to involve technology, especially reviews. >>> >>> Blatter said it, in the end, someone would have to decide what's >>> wrong and what's not and decide in real time.....that would kill >>> football. >>> >> >> How would it ruin football? Goal line technology might be referred to >> once every twenty matches. > > Somebody cited numbers from a FIFA study in the french newsgroup and there > was controversy about whether the ball crossed the goal line for 1 match > in > 10, which seems unexpectedly high. > > I many have missed something but so far in the WC there have been two disputed goal calls - out of 56 matches |