Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
Sports => Football => Topic started by: Bitter on June 19, 2006, 09:33:11 AM
-
So now ESPN having this debate about the Refs - Again!
About if the ball with the chip woulda save France embarassment.
Personally, I like the uncertainty of the game. Too much tech would make the game like american football. Replays and chips.
What next, Chips in your shoes and shinpads to check for fouls?
A shotclock for the goalkeeper?
robot teams?
The great thing about football is that it's so simple. Ball, feet, goals.
'Bad' refereeing is part of the game. (Mastroeni stamp the man ankle, no matter how much wynalda cry)
FIFA says they are happy with the refs so far. They put out guidelines about the points of emphasis the refs would have and gave teams enough time to adjust.
-
Domenech Demands Video Verification After "Defraudment"
France's national coach Raymond Domenech is demanding that FIFA introduce a system for the video verification of goals after France was disallowed a goal in yesterday's match against South Korea (1:1). Video replay showed the ball clearly crossing the goal line before being repulsed by Japan's goalkeeper. "At the world's biggest tournament it is a shame that FIFA doesn't use all possible means at its disposal to determine when goals have been shot," criticised Domenech.
The French have always been proponents of video verification. "And now another argument has been handed to us. We shot a second goal but the referee didn't give it to us - yes, we've been hoodwinked." In the 32nd minute of play Mexican referee Benito Archundia denied France a second goal. On the replay the header from Patrick Vieira was clearly over the line but the referee let play continue.
In the match between Argentina and the Ivory Coast (2:1) there was a similar situation as keeper Jean-Jacques Tizie blocked a header from Roberto Ayala after it crossed the line. This goal was also denied by the referee, Frank de Bleeckere from Belgium.
FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter is a stark opponent of a video confirmation system. "As long as I am president of FIFA there will not be video confirmation. Football is a game with a human face, with errors from coaches, players, and referees," Blatter said last year. The introduction of a "chip ball" - a ball outfitted with an electronic microchip to allow electronic goal detection - has been delayed due to technical hurdles and will probably resurface as an issue prior to the World Cup in South Africa in 2010.
So.....is anyone from Trinidad making a formal protest on Crouches goal? One where it will be noticed?
-
How about miniature cameras in the uprights and the crossbar, like stump-vision in cricket.
-
How about miniature cameras in the uprights and the crossbar, like stump-vision in cricket.
the football HARDLINERS do not want to have instant replay or miniature cameras in the top corners of the goal posts as they say it will SLOW the game down. therefore Honesty and Integrity get pushed to the back burner because NO-ONE wants the possibility of a 90 minute game taking 95 minutes to play due to instances of refs referring to the instant replay officials. which they SUPPOSED to have a fourth official for now but it jez doh work.
lets take a look at the crotch goal.
If instant replay was used it probably would have taken the 4th official about 10 seconds OK say one minute to decide that crotch did indeed grab Brents hair, and twist his head while goin for the header. 10 seconds One minute extra to MAKE SURE THE INTEGRITY of the game is maintained.  WOW
dont forget that there are 25 cameras at EVERY World Cup Game.
It will never be done as FIFA is an archaic self satisfying organisation that will only allow decisions to be made that will benefit those who they feel should benifit from their decisions and to have a system (like instant replay) where they are UNABLE to determine the outcome will never be tolerated by FIFA. JMO
-
i agree no cameras,it will spoil the game
-
i agree no cameras,it will spoil the game
same here...i've always felt that officiating decisions in football should be made the same way at the highest level (i.e. the world cup) as they are at the lowest (i.e. your local sunday league)
-
Something has to be done because I feel that this is the worst refreering display at a world cup that I have seen. OK certin things may not make sence like instant replay for fouls. Can't do anything about Crouch's goal in that respect but deffinetly balls going over the goal line must carry some priority. A goal is a goal and if it has scored then the team should be rewarded.
-
i agree no cameras,it will spoil the game
same here...i've always felt that officiating decisions in football should be made the same way at the highest level (i.e. the world cup) as they are at the lowest (i.e. your local sunday league)
You saying that now,but if a replay of a goal that was disallowed was the deciding factor for the warriors making it to the second round,would you not change your mind.
It's an interesting debate either way,for which I'm neutral..................
-
i agree no cameras,it will spoil the game
Rastaman ah hear ya brudda
dem same cameras zoom in on cock err couch pulling sancho's hair....look where it got us :-\
honestly i ain't really care for dem refrees either
-
Like looking at the Togo game that defender really did trip the Togo striker and it should have been a penalty. But I see where the ref coming from, giving Togo the penalty may have actually given them a goal and put them back into the game causing an upset on the swiss. FIFA don't want Togo araound any longer because of the commess, so by all cost they have to go. Cause I actually believe that Togo having beat the swiss would have gone on to beat France with that crap France been playing. So the ref had to comply to FIFA, my conspiracy theory. The refs have spoiled the beautiful game along with FIFA at this WC.
-
i agree no cameras,it will spoil the game
same here...i've always felt that officiating decisions in football should be made the same way at the highest level (i.e. the world cup) as they are at the lowest (i.e. your local sunday league)
You saying that now,but if a replay of a goal that was disallowed was the deciding factor for the warriors making it to the second round,would you not change your mind.
It's an interesting debate either way,for which I'm neutral..................
Like I say before, football is a simple game. The ref good or bad is part of the game too.
If you want perfection then put 10 ref on the field like american football and blow the whistle for every bump scrape and dive.
I have not yet seen any really awful calls, The cards have been in accordance with FIFA guidelines and the crouch thing and the Togo non-penalty - well how many of us see that when it happen in real time? It come like Janet Jackson breast.
-
I have a question about the "chip in the ball" that everyone wants FIFA to implement.... how exactly would it work? Since the ball is hollow it can't be in the centre, it would have to be on the inner lining. And in that case how would the chip indicate that the ball is truly over the line, depending how the ball is turned?
How can it tell the difference between the chip is on the line while the rest of the ball is inside the line (Figure A), and being on the line while the rest of the ball is outside the line (Figure B) ?
(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/3320/microchip9zg.jpg)
-
People will always argue for and against technology to suit them.. England wish it had technonlgy when THE BOSS punch the goal in the net.....but thankful it not dere against Crouch
i really think it go take away from the game..... human mistakes........with every goal or foul the football go be dead if they stop to check..........
-
If nothing is open to debate, what do we all talk about? I think some sort of sensor on the goal line could work, but other than that I would not want to see cameras.
We would end up with a game like American Football where the game is stopping and starting every five minutes to see if a player dived etc.
-
I have always felt it should be used to some capacity.. Eg: Each coach is allowed 1 objection/review etc: per half...If they use it for some shitty call, then too bad for them... This way the max amount of times the game will be stopped for review is 4 times, twice in each half.. Your objection could be used for anything, faking etc: Zidane should not have received a second yellow. he hardly touched the player and the guy was just baiting him..So not only was France robbed a goal and three point, but their most influential player has to sit out next game..I could tell you if we score a goal like France did and it is diallowed, you will hear everybody begging for the replay to be used.
As I said, a max of 1 objection per coach per half or maybe 1 each per game.. I think coaches will be hesitant to use it, unless they really believe it is legit...
-
FIFA agrees to halt all technology experiments
http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/7888634/FIFA-agrees-to-halt-all-technology-experiments
FIFA's International Board approved a plan to experiment with the addition of two more referees' assistants, rather than use cameras to rule on disputed goals.
FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke said there were fears the advance of goal-line technology would lead to its extensive use.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter and the Welsh Football Association opposed the use of camera replays.
"It's a game played by human beings, a game with a human face," WFA secretary general David Collins said. "There is a feeling it would hinder the flow of the game."
The decision was a disappointment to company officials of Hawk-Eye technology, which is used to determine line calls in professional tennis. Last month, tests were done at Reading's Madejski Stadium.
"I'm livid, it is completely out of the blue," Hawk-Eye managing director Paul Hawkins said. "A year ago they (the IFAB) set four criteria that had to be met, so they obviously wanted it then. We have invested an awful lot of money and now we have no return on that investment."
The English FA was also disappointed with FIFA's decision.
"I think it's dead in the water," FA chief executive Brian Barwick said.
The two additional assistant referees will be behind the goals and used at a UEFA or FIFA tournament before the board meeting next year.
-
stueps fifa again hmm
-
shotta we doh have to do de ref course again ;D
now we have ah better chance ah making it to de world cup with this semi-linesman
-
Soccer International Board agrees to halt all experiments with replay technology
By ROB HARRIS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 33 minutes ago
GLENEAGLES, Scotland (AP)—Soccer’s lawmakers agreed Saturday to halt all experiments with camera replay, putting faith in extra manpower instead.
FIFA’s International Board approved a plan to experiment with the addition of two more referees’ assistants, rather than use cameras to rule on disputed goals.
FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke said there were fears the advance of goal-line technology would lead to its extensive use.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter and the Welsh Football Association opposed the use of camera replays.
“It’s a game played by human beings, a game with a human face,” WFA secretary general David Collins said. “There is a feeling it would hinder the flow of the game.”
The decision was a disappointment to company officials of Hawk-Eye technology, which is used to determine line calls in professional tennis. Last month, tests were done at Reading’s Madejski Stadium.
“I’m livid, it is completely out of the blue,” Hawk-Eye managing director Paul Hawkins said. “A year ago they (the IFAB) set four criteria that had to be met, so they obviously wanted it then. We have invested an awful lot of money and now we have no return on that investment.”
The English FA was also disappointed with FIFA’s decision.
“I think it’s dead in the water,” FA chief executive Brian Barwick said.
The two additional assistant referees will be behind the goals and used at a UEFA or FIFA tournament before the board meeting next year.
-
as a Trini I dont trust extra manpower....cough '73 cough
Cameras are not susceptible to bribes ;)
dese FIFA boys want to keep control of outcomes ;) ;)
cynical is my middle name ;) ;) ;)
-
What's the major difference between having officials on the goal line and a man in a booth with a monitor in front of him? This once again proves that 21st century football is being run by 19th century thinking.
-
Instead of spending money complying Hawk Eye should a grease Jack palm. Then again maybe they refused to. ;D
-
FIFA taking a backward step over technology
Jon Carter
Archive
It may come as no surprise to those who know FIFA President Sepp Blatter's views on the subject, but the decision to halt work on developing technology to aid in goal-line controversy was dealt with deploraby
A year after giving their backing to plans to develop the 'Hawkeye' system already seen in tennis and cricket, for football, the International FA Board performed an incredible U-turn and voted against continuing the experiments for the foreseeable future.
Now, while the IFAB are made up of the four home associations (who each have a vote), there is no doubt that the major opposition came from FIFA, who make up the other half of the committee.
When you consider the track record of football's governing body in 'embracing' technology, and the fact that proposals need a three-quarter majority vote to be passed, 'Hawkeye' never really stood a chance.
However, that does beg the question why the IFAB were so keen to approve the original plans back in February 2007?
The simple answer is that FIFA like to project an image of progression, while the reality is that they would rather hark back to older and, in their view, happier, times. Quite why they would entertain the notion otherwise is a mystery.
Blatter has constantly fought with those keen on bringing technology into the game and the excuses that he trotted out for the refusal to continue the 'Hawkeye' trials, did not carry much weight.
'FIFA are of the opinion that the systems are too complicated and very costly,' he said. 'They would not add anything to the game and would harm the position of the referee. We have to maintain the laws of the game in their simplicity. Do you want technical devices to take these decisions?'
Actually, in some cases, yes. And the introduction of a goal-line camera would be a whole lot easier than attempting to bring in two extra assistant referees, which is the IFAB's intent while Hawkeye remains 'on ice'.
For starters, the FA have already expressed reservations over the recruitment of these extra officials, with the associations already struggling to bring in new blood.
Officials will hardly be clamouring for positions that involve standing at one end of the pitch for 90 minutes, before being called into action once every blue moon for a controversial line-call.
It is understood that UEFA President Michel Platini is keen to use these officials to determine penalty area disputes as well, which would certainly give their position more credence; although surely this would undermine the decisions made by the on-field referee?
The unfortunate reality is that football's decision makers have a flagrant disregard for any good that technology could do for the game. They see some form of machine-orientated Puma advert as the outcome of allowing the slightest hint of technology into a game steeped in tradition.
Tennis has managed it. Cricket too. And it has not interrupted 'the flow of the game'. Granted those sports are afforded more time for the decision making process, but when 'Hawkeye' claims to give an accurate goal-line decision to the referee in 0.5 seconds, that argument loses credibility.
Moreover, Blatter may claim that there are problems with consistency, but you only have to look at the level of decisions in the other sports and, conversely, an incident like then-Man Utd goalkeeper Roy Carroll knocking the ball two feet over the line against Spurs in 2005, to see the benefits.
Indeed, the inventor of Hawkeye, Paul Hawkins, is 'livid' at the decision. And rightly so, having been given the go-ahead to develop his program for use in the Premier League by the 2009/10 season and even showcasing it for the IFAB at a demonstration at Reading's Madjeski stadium as early as last week.
GettyImages
Goal-line cameras are not the way forward, according to FIFA.
Such a disgraceful back-track will surely lead to compensation for Hawkins and his team who have invested time and money in a product which is now deemed 'dead in the water'; while FIFA's conduct (batting eyelids one minute and casting them aside the next) will certainly act as a warning for any other company keen to become the flagship for any future efforts to bring in technology.
While the debate over the introduction of video technology may roll on for many years, the introduction of a system to clear up goal-line controversies seemed to be the very least that FIFA could have done to improve the reliability of the game.
With world football's governing body keen to block any such proposals, the future of the sport looks like remaining stagnant while others progress.
Sepp Blatter has also caused controversy this week with his comments about Martin Taylor's tackle on Eduardo.
While the Birmingham defender will receive a three-match ban for ending the Arsenal player's season, Blatter has decided to review the punishment and ensure that the 'correct' sanction is applied.
Quite what it has to do with him is a mystery. Arsenal, and indeed Eduardo himself, have accepted the player's apology and it is clear to even the most partisan Gunners fan that the incident was not malicious, and not helped by the fact the Croatian got his studs caught in the ground.
Blues' boss Alex McLeish has criticised Blatter, saying: '(When) I heard his comments I was flabbergasted. Sepp has probably seen the extent of Eduardo's injury and some of the pictures in the papers and he has been horrified because of that. The people who know the game know it wasn't a malicious tackle, simple as that.'
While the consequences of Taylor's tackle were unfortunate, Blatter has no business in trying to increase the ban already decided by the FA. It would set a dangerous precedent for FIFA to try and stamp their authority on decisions made across Europe and, if nothing else, represents a fabulous waste of time for everyone involved.
FIFA's top man should worry himself with improving the future of the game, starting with goal-line technology, and leave everything else alone
-
check here also
http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=34363.msg402039#msg402039
-
which one do you think is the best option?
-
dinho wa game is dat benayon get dat stamp?????
-
dinho wa game is dat benayon get dat stamp?????
February 1, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/v/d7sNO92GPuQ&start=20
-
almost eveybody wants the replay option apart from FIFA .....how yuh could run de mafia with CCTV watching everyting ?
-
The linesman was right there and saw everything perfect and still no red?....That was a dotish foul but then again he got away so it must of been a smart one ;D
-
almost eveybody wants the replay option apart from FIFA .....how yuh could run de mafia with CCTV watching everyting ?
Yuh hit de nail on de head!
-
almost eveybody wants the replay option apart from FIFA .....how yuh could run de mafia with CCTV watching everyting ?
:whistling: ent
-
Goal-line technology and Video Replays should be seperate really.
There should be a system where the ref is indicated in real time whether the ball crossed the line or not.
For other incidents - there likely should be a 5th official who is looking at monitors during the game (just like ppl at home watching tv) and can tell the ref through instant replays whether a call is right or not.
Alternatively there could be a challenge system where Managers get 1 or 2 challenges per game - which limits possible stoppage time.
Barring an efficient streamlined system - there needs to be a judicious use of video technology - because there are simply too many incidents in an average game that could possibly qualify for review.
Fouls off the ball, dives that lead to free kicks or penalties, offsides, determining whether or not the ball crossed the touch-line/goal-line, handballs etc etc.
I think that in many cases the correct (or as close to correct as possible) call could be relayed quite quickly to the ref - just like us fans can see it pretty much right away in a slo-mo.
Either way - basically all of the managers want some technology introduced - clearly it's just the archaic Sep Blatter & Michel Platini that are holding such an initiative back. Till which time the game will continue to be marred by unfair decisions and results.
There would be no harm in at least trying out such a scheme in a series of friendly matches to get a feel for how it would play out in an actual match - FIFA & UEFA need to get themselves out of the stone age and entire the world of modern sports.
-
What FIFA refuse to comment on is post match video analysis with penalties attached. They can do this easily and would soon change behaviour on the pitch. If players knew that after a game evidence could be reviewed watch how quickly beahviour would change. As much as instinct plays a part (according to Henry) if he knew that after the game the incident could be subject to review and then lets say he was banned for 5 games (international games) I am sure it would change the behaviour or at least to after the handball going to the ref and saying "look nah fren I did hans de ball day" (in a french accent of course).
It would not change all behaviour but it would surely be a start..... it means too much these days with too much money involved .....I still vex with crouch for pulling Sancho hair :-)
-
So it seems that there are 2 different types of technology that is being tested in an ultimate attempt to introduce to the game...
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1049882/fa-reiterates-desire-for-goal-line-technology?cc=5901
One using an electronic chip in the ball to detect when it pass the line
the other using the familiar hawkeye (that cricket and tennis use) for line decisions, lbw etc.
What allyuh think about the introduction of technology to the game? I know for many years FIFA had a set stance of not bothering with it and maintaniing the "humanity" of the game, but it seems like they have changed now...
Which technology allyuh feel better? I feel Hawkeye is the way to go for the one simple reason that offsides are the second most controversial set of calls. Just like how they review LBW's now in cricket, I feel is high time now to review goals that are controversial...This has many advantages - the linesmen cld be more generous and allow play to continue when in doubt, cause they know the plays could be reviewed after...
Hawkeye would allow for this as well
I dont think technology shld be used just yet for other issues like fouls, penalties, hand ball etc (like how NBA and NFL review everything).
And on this topic - can anyone tell me the role of the 2 extra officials in European games, the men who stand behind the goal?