Did the goal line technology work or fail

[Time]

It worked. You could not make the correct call from the TVcamera angles. The TV cameras were not directly in line with the goal line and would cause parallax error resulting in you (or the TV viewer) not seeing the entire ball over the line.

Yup, the camera replays did not show a goal but I think the video link shows a goal, we have to give the edge to the technology and agree with the goal.

[Tilla]

I see it now. Viewing an a tablet I wasnt seeing the entire thing.

[Peter R]

Tennis and cricket have been using this type of technology successfully IMO; I don't see why it won't be the same with football.

[Islandman]

Well, I just heard that FIFA rules say if a shot is taken which then bounces of the goalpost and hits a defender or GK before going in, it is NOT an own goal, the striker gets the goal.

So it sounds like the technology got it right and the ref still got it wrong. If that is the case they will most likely correct it.

[Rockman]

Maybe I need to inderstand this goal line technology more but every time I see it,it is animated.Thatt requires some interpretation....

[Tilla]

They showed a picture of the ball about an inch over the line. Remember, the entire ball has to cross the line for it to be considered a goal.

[Islandman]

I believe the animations are just a simulation of what the high speed cameras have picked up, to show an up-close visual of how it made its decision.

[Paul Marin]

I am not sure that the 2nd French goal against Honduras was a goal (that the entire ball crossed the line) I don't see a goal in the replays. I see may be 80% to 90% of the ball across the line.

Who wants to call it before someone publishes a photo from one of the cameras?

There is a reason that the technology in use is not video or photo - it is because it is more accurate. So it is exactly because your eye can be tricked to believe 80% or 90% crossed the line that I believe the technology is more likely right than your eye, or a photo.

[Time]

Tennis and cricket have been using this type of technology successfully IMO; I don't see why it won't be the same with football.

Tennis and cricket has wide open spaces for whatever they using to see where the ball is located at any instant. I don't know how they figure it out within the confines of the goal space. How do they do it inside the goal?

[Paul Marin]

Tennis and cricket has wide open spaces for whatever they using to see where the ball is located at any instant. I don't know how they figure it out within the confines of the goal space. How do they do it inside the goal?

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/0...hnology-works/

The system comes from German tech startup GoalControl. The company installed 14 cameras in each of the 12 World Cup stadiums, located high up above the stands of roaring, painted fans. The cameras work together to triangulate the motion of the ball with calculated precision, snapping up to 500 images per second. With GoalControl’s cameras and additional goal line sensors, the startup’s technology can instantly ping a referee when a ball crosses over the line

[Tilla]

They have 14 high speed cameras located at different points in the stadium that focus on each goal (7 cameras per goal). They use these cameras to determine the X,Y & Z coordinate of the ball at any point in this when the ball goes to goal.

Based the position of the ball, the computer figures out if the ball has crossed the goal line, then provide feedback to a watch worn by the referee.

[Tilla]

Good! Thanks for that.

[Karl]

Karl, If the technology is what is being used, that's what we have to go by. With the TV cameras, it's impossible to say, IMO.

TV cameras can be used for offside though, or, why not apply the same goal-line technology?? TO BE USED when a goal results i.e.

Sure the ref has to go with the technology! That is why he wears that special 'watch'. ...and you are correct the fans should accept same.
btw - In the case under discussion it appears the spectators immediately accepted the call. The TV/Cable/Media camera replays caused a hum from the crowd...but it appears to me that the real passionate questioning came from the Honduran coach. ...but he settled down with a shrug.

Aside: The day shall soon be on us where the entire pitch (...later the spectators) will be watch by a great multitude of cameras. Dissecting of games demand it!

50, 100, 200 or more cameras?

[Karl]

Do you agree it was an OG? I don't.

Many own goals in my days would never be awarded as own goals. Hey the attackers are trying to score...and the defenders to prevent a scoring! If in trying to prevent a goal bound ball from entering the goal the ball still goes in, why shouldn't the attacker be awarded the goal?

Completely different thing from the following ---

i) 3rd goal -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvLmUbyXxM

- and a weird defenders goal it is - pass from one defender to his fellow defender who then beat his 'keeper 'brilliantly'!

ii) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvLmUbyXxM

iii) http://www.attackingsoccer.com/2013/...luna-own-goal/


Question: What concept is in play that when the defender designated 'keeper dives and attempts to prevent a goal and the ball deflects in off him the attacker is awarded a goal...but if an 'out defender' makes similar effort and the ball deflects in off him it is not awarded to the attacker but awarded as an own goal?

[Rockman]

Heheh,one thing though Karl,why extra time is always in minutes and never seconds if that watch the ref has on his hand figures?