Goal line technology

[Sickko]

Goal line technology might be the way forward but can it be used universally due to cost?

Just heard a sports report on CVM TV where a test match series will go ahead without the replay bells and whistles we see at some venues simply because the host country's broadcast partners cannot afford the technology.

The replay technology and the referral system in Test cricket is a good thing in my mind and the goal line technology would help in football but I cant see the Premier league teams here being able to afford it...hell not even the JFF can afford it unless FIFA decides to give it out for free to needy Federations.

[Tilla]

Goal line technology might be the way forward but can it be used universally due to cost?

Any idea of the cost? I do not think cost is an issue right now, it needs to be instituted. Saw where Chelsea benefited from a non-call of a goal where the ball was cleared from behind the line. In matches at this level and major championships technology should be used. The speed at which the ball entered and was cleared from behind the goal line in the Bolton/Chelsea match, I do not expect any assistant referee to pick up on that and respond so quickly.

The idea of universal affordability holding up the acceptance of the technology just does not make sense. For example, in tennis they use a court line technology to help officials judge when a ball is out or not. This does not mean that every tennis competition you will find this technology being used. The same applies to other sports. In track and field, the more high profile competitions use the latest technology, but not every track meet will use it. The same goes for other sports like American football, hockey etc, etc.

It is really a shame to see major football competitions being decided by mistakes of match officials where they are not given the tools to make the best decisions possible.

Jamaica's Premier League, I do not see them being able to use this for now. Our World Cup Qualifiers and other international matches should.

[Paul Marin]

Any idea of the cost? I do not think cost is an issue right now, it needs to be instituted. Saw where Chelsea benefited from a non-call of a goal where the ball was cleared from behind the line. In matches at this level and major championships technology should be used. The speed at which the ball entered and was cleared from behind the goal line in the Bolton/Chelsea match, I do not expect any assistant referee to pick up on that and respond so quickly.

The idea of universal affordability holding up the acceptance of the technology just does not make sense. For example, in tennis they use a court line technology to help officials judge when a ball is out or not. This does not mean that every tennis competition you will find this technology being used. The same applies to other sports. In track and field, the more high profile competitions use the latest technology, but not every track meet will use it. The same goes for other sports like American football, hockey etc, etc.

It is really a shame to see major football competitions being decided by mistakes of match officials where they are not given the tools to make the best decisions possible.

Jamaica's Premier League, I do not see them being able to use this for now. Our World Cup Qualifiers and other international matches should.

I agree with your point. The reason why technology is not used in football - in my opinion - is because FIFA is a corrupt organization and using technology would mean that they can't control the outcome of games. There is ZERO doubt in my mind that FIFA has orchestrated match fixing itself.

Anyway, it is not only goal line technology that needs the benefit of replay, but look at the red card Rodwell got yesterday - it completely changed the game. Everybody watching the game on TV knew it wasn't right because we could see a replay, but the one man who needed the information most (the ref) didn't have access to it. Madness!!

[Peter R]

The technology of simply using a slo mo replay that even a simple camera can do is readily available and also affordable. The replay that you refer to would cost FIFA, the FA or whoever NOTHING extra as it is being used (by us the viewers) already to see some of the things the refs miss. All this airy fairy talk about goal-line technology is smoke and mirrors... while the replay camera might not be able to clearly say whether or not a ball crossed the line in all cases, we at home have seen that just the replay that is shown to us can clarify the matter in many instances.

With reference to cricket, while some associations might not be able to afford "hawkeye" and "hot spot" and "snick-o-meter" nor the other stuff they use to check for LBWs, NO international match now is without a camera at each end to check the run-outs. they also use replay cameras for checking boundaries and catches..rightly so! FIFA is joking with this technolgy stuff... all major sports seem to have embraced the use of technology to some degree or other.

My next pet peeve in football is having the ref be the official time-keeper. If the fourth official is the one who sets the number of extra minutes added, why isn't he also the official time-keeper?..gives the ref one less thing to worry about. Let the man on the side-line do it and let him blow off the game... just an opinion.

[Paul Marin]

The technology of simply using a slo mo replay that even a simple camera can do is readily available and also affordable. The replay that you refer to would cost FIFA, the FA or whoever NOTHING extra as it is being used (by us the viewers) already to see some of the things the refs miss. All this airy fairy talk about goal-line technology is smoke and mirrors... while the replay camera might not be able to clearly say whether or not a ball crossed the line in all cases, we at home have seen that just the replay that is shown to us can clarify the matter in many instances.

With reference to cricket, while some associations might not be able to afford "hawkeye" and "hot spot" and "snick-o-meter" nor the other stuff they use to check for LBWs, NO international match now is without a camera at each end to check the run-outs. they also use replay cameras for checking boundaries and catches..rightly so! FIFA is joking with this technolgy stuff... all major sports seem to have embraced the use of technology to some degree or other.

My next pet peeve in football is having the ref be the official time-keeper. If the fourth official is the one who sets the number of extra minutes added, why isn't he also the official time-keeper?..gives the ref one less thing to worry about. Let the man on the side-line do it and let him blow off the game... just an opinion.

You think I'm kidding, is tief dem tief. Anyone who doesn't realize football is run by thugs and crooks akin to the mafia is only kidding themselves.

[OJ]

You dont necessarily need GL tech.. jsut replays..

[Tilla]

You can do it faster with GT. The ball crosses the goal line and the referee receives an instantaneous signal in his head set. He blows his whistle and the game continues.

I would hate to see us have to go to replays where the game may have to be stopped for a decision as in American football.

[OJ]

yes you could but it expensive.. hockey does it by replay so too the nfl.. most of the issue can be solved in 10 secs.

[Tilla]

hockey does it by replay so too the nfl.. most of the issue can be solved in 10 secs.

I do not follow hockey, so I cannot speak on that. I als do not see where it has to be expensive. Think of all the video equipment which would be needed to allow them to review footage? Also, you have to have the personnel to man it.

I am not sure watch much NFL football. The game gets stopped every minute for reviews. I am telling you though you think the hockey reviews are quick, but the replay does not happen in 10 seconds. It may take 10 seconds to queue up the footage and another 30 to review it and another 20 to come to a decision. Too much damn time that.

Now think of it, in the EPL and other major competitions, the referee is already wearing equipment which allows him to communicate with his assistants and the 4th official. This is an ideal situation to allow him to receive a signal which tells him that the ball has cleared the goal line. Just a radio transmitter and a receiver providing almost instantaneous

With electronics being what it is today, I do not see it being too expensive to implement.

[Bruce]

Tilla: NHL Video Review

Tilla,

When the NHL upgraded its video review equipment in 2007, the price tag was $5 million for all 30 arenas. 30 arenas, 2 sets of cameras for each end, and 60 new nets, or about $83,000 and change per team

The NHL video review consists of 1) a camera with a movable lens mounted on the back post of the net, 2) a camera mounted in the rafters, looking along behind the goal line, and 3) whatever TV cameras are broadcasting the game. This year, the cameras in the nets will be HD.

In the NHL, all goals are reviewed in the booth by the replay official. He will
send a signal to the scorer's table on the ice to signal the referee that 1) it was a good goal, 2) hold the face off for a few seconds to take another look, or 3) summon the referee to the scorers table for a full review. The goal that won the 2010 Stanley Cup for the Chicago Blackhawks in overtime in Game 6 was video reviewed.

When a play goes to full review, it is done by NHL Operations in Toronto, dubbed "the war room" which monitors all games in progress.

This year, a green "verification line" will be painted in the net 3 inches (the width of the puck) behind the red goal line. This speeds up video reviews to determine if the puck completely crossed the goal line.

The puck must completely cross the red goal line in order to be ruled a good goal. The red line can get a bit blurred, so if video review shows any part of the puck touching the green line, it is a good goal.

[Tilla]

Still sounds too long.

The goal line technology is supposed to send an audible beep to the referee's headset when the entire ball crosses the goal line. You cannot get quicker than that. I also think that you do not need video to do the verification as audio will be much quicker.