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: felangey on 29 Jun 2010 19:08 > 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. No, the forcefield only reacts to the implants in the ball as I understand it.
From: Paul C on 29 Jun 2010 19:09 "felangey" <nobody(a)home.com> wrote in message news:88vcnmFjcuU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> 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. > > No, the forcefield only reacts to the implants in the ball as I understand > it. OK.
From: Bob on 29 Jun 2010 19:15 Paul C wrote: > "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 Yes, these numbers came from a FIFA study that took place before this world cup (I am not sure when but after 2006). As I said, I was surprised by how many matches were reported to be involved in ball over the goal line squabbles.
From: *skriptis, European Patriot on 29 Jun 2010 20:00 "tuan" <phamquangtuan(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4c2a8611$0$25325$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > *skriptis, European Patriot wrote: > >> "Paul C" <paul(a)thersgb.net> wrote in message >> news:88va16F53fU5(a)mid.individual.net... >> >>>"*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. >> >> >> >> It would ruin it in a sense that it would significantly change the game. >> >> >> Just imagine this: >> >> 1) Techology, ie, replays are being used to decide moments like Hurst's >> goal. >> 2) Imagine Lampard actually didn't score and in the counter-attack >> Germans scored. >> 3) Now, with the technology available, and because they think they did >> score, England pauses the game, asks for replay, thus eliminating chance >> for Germans to have a counter-attack. >> > > Easily avoidable - arrange to have challenges considered at the next > "natural" pause (free kick, corner kick, throw in or goal). Then if the > Lampart kick was not a goal, a successful counterattack would still give > Germany a point. If the Lampart kick was a goal, the German counterattack > even if successful will be disallowed, as it should be. very complicated...
From: Huw Morris on 30 Jun 2010 03:32
tuan wrote: > Easily avoidable - arrange to have challenges considered at the next > "natural" pause (free kick, corner kick, throw in or goal). Then if the > Lampart kick was not a goal, a successful counterattack would still give > Germany a point. If the Lampart kick was a goal, the German > counterattack even if successful will be disallowed, as it should be. And you think that would cause *less* controversy? No, when an incident needs to be reviewed, it has to be reviewed ASAP. Huw |