Goal line technology

It has to be implimented now. I should (as an Arsenal fan) but I feel sorry for Spurs.

Started writing an article about this earlier, was no where near the line.

The referee couldn't have seen it cross the line at all and so it places such a huge doubt that he can't give the goal. He'd have been more forgiven had he not given it due to the fact he couldn't see it than the situation that has been created.

I think the ref saw Benoit Ekotto's reaction and gave it. He waved his arms in disappointment as if the ball crossed the line.

Regardless, the ref should be 100% certain the ball did cross the line.

I wonder if any spurs players who say anything critical about the decision will be fined? Will the ref be fined?

the ref won't be fined, but he will almost certainly get a black mark from his assessor for what was, let's be honest, a shocking decision.

As for goal line technology, there just aren't any serious arguments against it in my mind, but unfortunately with the elephants in charge of the world game I'm not sure I can see it happening anytime soon...

I don't like it when football fans like a few Chelsea fans come out and say, well its not our problem we won 5-1 it didn't make a difference. It does, it means Spurs have to chase the game, Parker goes forward as do the Full backs, leaving acres of space in behind, of course it changes the course of the game.

Anyway, it was a terrible decision, he looked at it for a good 2-3 seconds before giving it. I do have sympathy with him though, he was probably influenced by the incidents we have seen this season, such as the obvious goal for QPR against Bolton this season. He thought if he give it and got it right he would be praised from all fronts for an excellent call. However, for him its backfired and the fact refs are guessing and costing teams matches in finals is frankly a disgrace. Fifa, sort it out, its a disgrace you are ruining the greatest game on earth.

well yes and no martyr.

I thought Spurs had looked really lethargic early on in the second half, and the "goal" (or rather the injustice of it) seemed to really get them going, and they then had comfortably their best 15 minutes of the game, pulling one back in the process. So I'm not sure we can say for sure the decision cost them the match, for all we know the second half would have carried on the way it had started and Chelsea would have scored a few more.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well yes and no martyr.

I thought Spurs had looked really lethargic early on in the second half, and the "goal" (or rather the injustice of it) seemed to really get them going, and they then had comfortably their best 15 minutes of the game, pulling one back in the process. So I'm not sure we can say for sure the decision cost them the match, for all we know the second half would have carried on the way it had started and Chelsea would have scored a few more.

Like yourself with my first post, yes and know on your reply

You can hardly say Spurs were lethargic when there had only been 4 mins gone in the second half. They outplayed you first half and almost scored two goals. It was a piece of Drogba brilliance that gifted you a one goal lead.

Cech should have got sent off, although personally I would take a goal over a pen and a red card any day, you can always miss a penalty. Similar incident in the champions league final in 05, when I think Barca scored but wanted the pen and the red card for Lehmen. Correct me on that if i'm wrong I can't remember it that well

They only seemed to have been playing better because they were forced to throw even more people in attack, leaving Chelsea to play on the counter. Parker was told to drive on and was leaving space in behind. Taking nothing away from Chelsea though, its not a lucky result to win 5-1, they took their goals well, especially Drogba's and Lampards.

But like you said, 'if's' and 'buts' are useless in football because you can't predict the future. Good luck in the final and against Barca, your gonna need it.

I have long reached the conclusion that the reason goal line technology has not been introduced is not because of direct opposition to using technology in that situation, but is really because they are worried that this will be the thin end of a wedge and they fear they would then have trouble resisting calls for technology in much more commonplace situations, eg was a decision to award/not to award penalty a correct decision....

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:I have long reached the conclusion that the reason goal line technology has not been introduced is not because of direct opposition to using technology in that situation, but is really because they are worried that this will be the thin end of a wedge and they fear they would then have trouble resisting calls for technology in much more commonplace situations, eg was a decision to award/not to award penalty a correct decision....

The thing is about penalties is they can be judgement calls. How many times have we had a situation where 100% agree it was/wasn't a penalty, even on viewing a replay? Not that often.

With goal-line calls it is a matter of fact. The ball today clearly did not cross the line.

Having said that Spurs got themselves back to the situation they were in before it fairly shortly after. They then conceded a further 3 goals.

azania wrote:
I wonder if any spurs players who say anything critical about the decision will be fined?

Hopefully.

azania wrote:Will the ref be fined?

Will Ekhoto be fined for letting Ramires in for the 3rd Chelsea goal? No? Why is the ref's error more important then?

I have limitted sympathy for football fans complaining about referees:
1) It is frequently used to airbrush over their team's failings. It seems it is much more unacceptable for a referee to cost a side a goal (not that Atkinson was solely at fault, I mean Totenham had at least 2 chances to clear the ball before Matta's shot anyway) then it is for a player.
2) This constant and non-stop criticism of referees after every game by players, managers, fans and pundits creates an environment where the refs are under much more pressure than necessary, and where aspiring young refs are turned off the game, thus a smaller pool of referees, thus fewer good referees.

Football really does have the refs it deserves. Until attitudes change.

The solution is very simple and doesn't require technology although technology can be added to the process.

Each game of tennis has 8 officials associated with it:
One tournament referee
One Umpire (for each tennis match)
Six line judges (for each tennis match).
Some tournaments also have technology (Hawkeye).

If tennis can do it so can football - employ more line judges. Considering the current number of people unemployed in Britain and Europe there would be plenty of takers for line judging (at least one line judge next to each goal line).

You know, it looks a heck of a lot closer on this image from the back page of the Daily Mirror. But still not over the line.



Don't worry, we just have to wait for Barcelona to be denied a goal that goes over the line in the Champions League Final and then Blatter will immediately have goal line technology put in.

It looks over to me - from that picture. So it was a goal all along!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:As for goal line technology, there just aren't any serious arguments against it in my mind, but unfortunately with the elephants in charge of the world game I'm not sure I can see it happening anytime soon...

Elephants? Don't you mean dinosaurs?

The frustrating thing about what happened on Sunday is that the technology already exists to put an end to 'phantom goals' and to perfectly good goals not being given. How long did it take for ITV to show us a slow-motion replay of the 'goal'? Barely 30 seconds. Now all that's needed is for the official who deals with substitutions also to have a monitor in front of him, and the authority to tell the referee that a goal shouldn't stand, or should be given if the referee's waved play on.

Rugby has the TMO (television match official); tennis has Hawkeye; cricket has the third umpire; but football has Sepp Blatter.

Rugbys television line official wasn't right in the world cup final. Or the lions tour of south Africa. When do you take a video replay for a goal? What if the opposition immediately break and have a chance to score? You still have controversy. Football has an awful lot more of its house to get in order first. Diving, pulling in the box, foul and abusive language, the offside rule etc etc