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: Sven Mischkies on 1 Jul 2010 11:41 On Jul 1, 4:10 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > tuan wrote: > > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > > >> Insane Ranter <log...(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. > > A small percentage of erreur is acceptable if it means not having to > introduce expensive technology that can deal only with very obvious calls > during the match. 3 perpectives (central ref, and 2 assistants on the goal > line and touch line) are much less likely to be all obstructed at once. Technology may still be cheaper than 2 extra refs. 2 extra refs have been pretty useless in the Europa League last season. Ciao, SM
From: Bob on 1 Jul 2010 12:24 Sven Mischkies wrote: > On Jul 1, 4:10 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: >> tuan wrote: >>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >> >>>> Insane Ranter <log...(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. >> >> A small percentage of erreur is acceptable if it means not having to >> introduce expensive technology that can deal only with very obvious >> calls during the match. 3 perpectives (central ref, and 2 assistants >> on the goal line and touch line) are much less likely to be all >> obstructed at once. > > > Technology may still be cheaper than 2 extra refs. 2 extra refs have > been pretty useless in the Europa League last season. Cameras need to be staffed too and other technologies only address some types of errors. I keep reading about the uselessness of additional refs during the trials in Europa League but I don't see how an extra ref behind the goal could have missed the most egregious miscalls we see in the box (Lampard's (non)goal, Given's take down of Anelka, Henry's hand, etc ..). Perhaps it has to involve a rethinking of ref hierarchy and decision making process as well so that sideline ref actually take reponsibility for what they see. I'd like to see what were the directives to ARs during these trials and findings. If anyone has a link I'd be grateful. Note that I am not necessarily opposed to using video to help refs make the right decisions on the most obvious calls (i.e. with rapid enough decions making that wouldn't disrupt the flow of the game) but it wouldn't solve most errors (perhaps 50%? including offsides, goal line, and obvious fouls, hands, etc..).
From: Sven Mischkies on 1 Jul 2010 15:23 Bob <Bob(a)Bob.com> wrote: > Cameras need to be staffed too and other technologies only address some > types of errors. I keep reading about the uselessness of additional refs > during the trials in Europa League but I don't see how an extra ref behind > the goal could have missed the most egregious miscalls we see in the box > (Lampard's (non)goal, Given's take down of Anelka, Henry's hand, etc ..). They did miss similar incidents. Ciao, SM -- http://www.gourockviews.co.uk I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. Douglas Adams
From: HASM on 1 Jul 2010 19:23 hsv83(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) writes: > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > [Refs behind goals in the EL] >> Did they miss a lot of "Did the ball cross the line?" calls? > No. They missed fouls etc in the penalty area. And you won't find many > football fans happy to have an extra ref turning a blind eye to that, > concentrating only on ball in/ball not in situations. US High schools still use a two referee system on and off. First year I refereed there it's incredible how one defers to one another on calls that we should make. After that I just called everything I saw, even if closer to the other blind guy, but it takes knowledge of the team to be able to do that. Even on the standard diagonal system, ARs refrain from calling a few fouls that are "obviously" the CR's responsibility. I can see the extra referees (GR, goal-referees?) deferring to the CR a lot in the future, until everyone gets comfortable with the system, but not useful to catch the few balls that bounce in and out. A pair of cameras broadcasting to the 4th's iPhone should be enough to appease the one month in four year fans. -- HASM
From: Bob on 1 Jul 2010 20:09
Sven Mischkies wrote: > Bob <Bob(a)Bob.com> wrote: > >> Cameras need to be staffed too and other technologies only address >> some types of errors. I keep reading about the uselessness of >> additional refs during the trials in Europa League but I don't see >> how an extra ref behind the goal could have missed the most >> egregious miscalls we see in the box (Lampard's (non)goal, Given's >> take down of Anelka, Henry's hand, etc ..). > > > > They did miss similar incidents. It'd be nice to see numbers to understand what they missed. |