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: Evan Kirshenbaum on 30 Jun 2010 12:39 "Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka(a)Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> writes: > "Karamako" <monsieur.karamako(a)nawadoo.fr> wrote in rec.sport.soccer: > >> Paul C a �crit : >> >>> Erm yes, hence the need for goal line technology. >> >> Or another referee behind the penalty area... > > Proposing a weak solution that persists in offering the limitations > and weaknesses of humans as an alternative to no solution to the > limitations and weaknesses of humans---which is the status quo---is > no solution at all. Calling the ball crossing the line when you're at the corner and visually lining up the goalposts is a piece of cake. Calling it when you're running back from the offside line is hard, and you'll make mistakes. (Calling it from the field, when it's at all questionable, is essentially impossible. The angle's completely wrong.) But from the goal line, it's easy. The back of the post is lined up with the back of the line, so if you see daylight between the ball and the post, it's over. > If you want to keep the game human with no technology, then leave it > alone...leave it as it is now. > > If you want 99.999% certainty in making the right judgment, then > bring the technology in and let it work, just as it works quite well > in other sports. No manufacturer in his right mind is going to claim 99.999% certainty under game conditions, especially if you limit it to cases in which the ball doesn't actually go far enough in to hit the back of the net. You'll be lucky to get 99%. Which is probably plenty given how infrequently the situation arises (and how frequently the AR *is* in position to tell the ref that the mechanism was mistaken when it is), but is probably on par with a human goal-line assistant. Who also could be useful for spotting fouls and dives. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Insane Ranter on 30 Jun 2010 12:58 On Jun 30, 9:55 am, higgs <kenhig...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 11:52 pm, HASM <netn...(a)invalid.com> wrote: > > > Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > On Jun 30, 11:08 pm, Sven Mischkies <hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net> > > > Subs are allowed but only on one's own throw-in. > > > Substitutions are allowed at every stoppage of play. > > > -- HASM > > Common wisdom is that you don't substitute during a corner, though > you'd be surprised how many actually do Sometimes that just happens to be the stoppage that comes up. If you don't take it you might be sitting on the sideline for the rest of the game.
From: Insane Ranter on 30 Jun 2010 13:00 On Jun 30, 12:39 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Winston Smith, American Patriot" > > <FranzKa...(a)Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> writes: > > "Karamako" <monsieur.karam...(a)nawadoo.fr> wrote in rec.sport.soccer: > > >> Paul C a crit : > > >>> Erm yes, hence the need for goal line technology. > > >> Or another referee behind the penalty area... > > > Proposing a weak solution that persists in offering the limitations > > and weaknesses of humans as an alternative to no solution to the > > limitations and weaknesses of humans---which is the status quo---is > > no solution at all. > > Calling the ball crossing the line when you're at the corner and > visually lining up the goalposts is a piece of cake. Calling it when > you're running back from the offside line is hard, and you'll make > mistakes. (Calling it from the field, when it's at all questionable, > is essentially impossible. The angle's completely wrong.) But from > the goal line, it's easy. The back of the post is lined up with the > back of the line, so if you see daylight between the ball and the > post, it's over. Maybe we need a ref behind each goal and a second running the field?
From: Ostap Bender on 30 Jun 2010 20:58 On Jun 29, 2:13 pm, "Paul C" <p...(a)thersgb.net> wrote: > 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? I like this "logic"! It makes me wonder: why does NASA use supercomputers to help them decide if it is safe to send the space ship into space today or not. Why use all these supercomputers to study the weather patterns and to diagnose the internal systems of the spacecraft? At > the end of the day, the final decision will have to be taken by a human being. So, I say: make NASA get rid of all of its computers and explore the Universe the natural way, the way our prehistoric ancestors did it: grab a rock and throw it up in the air as high as possible. > 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. Why? > "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." That's like saying: "If we allow the police to arrest murderers, what would prevent them from arresting innocent people?" > 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." > > Daily Record
From: tuan on 1 Jul 2010 04:49
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > Insane Ranter <logwyn(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >>On Jun 30, 12:39 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> >>>"Winston Smith, American Patriot" >>> >>><FranzKa...(a)Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> writes: >>> >>>>"Karamako" <monsieur.karam...(a)nawadoo.fr> wrote in rec.sport.soccer: >>> >>>>>Paul C a crit : >>> >>>>>>Erm yes, hence the need for goal line technology. >>> >>>>>Or another referee behind the penalty area... >>> >>>>Proposing a weak solution that persists in offering the limitations >>>>and weaknesses of humans as an alternative to no solution to the >>>>limitations and weaknesses of humans---which is the status quo---is >>>>no solution at all. >>> >>>Calling the ball crossing the line when you're at the corner and >>>visually lining up the goalposts is a piece of cake. Calling it when >>>you're running back from the offside line is hard, and you'll make >>>mistakes. (Calling it from the field, when it's at all questionable, >>>is essentially impossible. The angle's completely wrong.) But from >>>the goal line, it's easy. The back of the post is lined up with the >>>back of the line, so if you see daylight between the ball and the >>>post, it's over. >> >>Maybe we need a ref behind each goal and a second running the field? > > > All you need are two ARs on each side, one (stationary) at the goal > line and the other (moving) at the offside line, with flags and one > referee with a whistle. > Not foolproof - lines of view can be obstructed by players. A camera from the top is much better. |