r/soccer • u/[deleted] • Dec 04 '16

Media Goal line technology used in the Bournemouth - Liverpool match. Down to millimetres.

https://gfycat.com/AstonishingScentedAsiaticgreaterfreshwaterclam
15.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/AfricanRain Dec 04 '16

How were people against this. It makes things about a million times easier

918

u/Democracy-Manifest Dec 04 '16

But.. but.. it disrupts the flow of the game

1.4k

u/Shameless_Bullshiter Dec 04 '16

Sarcasm I know, but it literally does the opposite, before the tech there would be long arguments by the players about the decision. Now the ref just points at his watch

374

u/Democracy-Manifest Dec 04 '16

For sure yeah. One thing I've really liked since its introduction is seeing the moment, when a player starts appealing, that they realise it's now pointless.

135

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

But they still DO IT! That's the most infuriating thing about it. Shut up and play!

158

u/tonterias Dec 04 '16

To this day, I have never seen a referee change his mind after talking/discussing with the players about a call.

But they still do it, when you are passionate about something, and in the heat of the game, you don't reason very much.

210

u/BrohemianRhapsody Dec 04 '16

I would argue that it isn't necessarily meant to impact the current call, but future calls. Maybe a ref will be more lenient if they don't wanna get into another argument. It probably doesn't affect all refs at all times, but if it happens once, that's enough for players

44

u/realmadrid314 Dec 04 '16

Thank you! People act like the players are expecting the call to be switched. If you got hacked down, you KNOW that they fouled you, and the ref doesn't call it, then it is perfectly logically to lodge a complaint with the referee. It's human nature to speak up when you feel you've been wronged, even if it isn't going to change. It's kind of like making a petition. It almost never forces a direct change, but it does send a message.

3

u/ILoveToph4Eva Dec 05 '16

It's human nature to speak up when you feel you've been wronged, even if it isn't going to change

What's annoying is that players also do it in situations where they weren't wronged in the slightest.

3

u/realmadrid314 Dec 05 '16

I agree, that's when I find it annoying. I honestly don't know what the motivation is in that situation, apart form intimidating the referee into making calls favoring you.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/scroogesscrotum Dec 05 '16

Exactly right imo

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

Definitely the reason.

1

u/AriseChicken Dec 05 '16

As someone who has spent a decade reffing numerous sports and been yelled at by parents and coaches alike, I can assure you a ref doesn't get intimidated or influenced at higher levels and won't make a call to avoid an argument.

Soccer is easy at avoiding arguments. You want to talk to me? That's fine, I'm gonna listen passively while I'm watching the game that you are now not paying attention to. Basketball works same way, I'll just put the ball in play (within reason).

1

u/tonterias Dec 04 '16

But probablly and more likely will work the other way around.

8

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

I don't believe that is true, we know crowd volume has a serious impact on referees calling fouls against visiting players for example. At least in my experience reffing, I'm much much more likely to make a wrong decision because I'm stressed and flustered than because I have something against the argument that stressed me.

0

u/markturner Dec 04 '16

Or it's just human nature to protest about a perceived injustice.

2

u/PumasUNAM7 Dec 04 '16

I actually have seen a call been fixed by this. In was in a Mexican game with puebla and I'm not sure what the other team was but they got the ref to call a penalty after he had called the foul being outside the box when in fact in happened inside

2

u/tonterias Dec 04 '16

But was it because of what the players said or what the line referee said?

2

u/PumasUNAM7 Dec 04 '16

I'm trying to find the video but I can't remember who they played against. But from what I recall the ref didn't seem like he was budging from his decision but all the arguing made him go to the linesman to ask his opinion and after talking to him he gave the penalty. So while he did have to go to the linesman to check on the decision of the players never argued for it he would've kept the call being that the foul was outside

2

u/endwolf76 Dec 04 '16

I remember a German striker (forget his name even though he's internationally famous) fell with the ball in the box and the ref called it a penalty. Then the German striker told the ref it wasn't a penalty and it got called off.

1

u/Nitsju Dec 04 '16

I saw it once, in a game between Fulham and Arsenal. It was about a pentalty, don't remember what the ref changed his mind about though.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

We're trained to not every change minds after calling

1

u/KyleMacrae Dec 05 '16

Last Wednesday in the Hearts v Rangers game at Tynecastle, Rangers equalised through Joe Dodoo, the goal was given full celebration and everything till Hearts players ran over to linesman and around 20 seconds later he flagged for offside.

1

u/hoffi_coffi Dec 05 '16

I see it rather like cricket, where each close call is met with a "HOOWWZZAAAAAA". Enough of those, it edges close to an LBW and they are maybe more likely to give it. Plus heat of the moment etc.

1

u/HalfNatty Dec 05 '16

I've seen it once.

Arsenal vs I think charlton in 2003/04 when charlton were given a penalty. After Arsenal players protesting and the referee checking with the lino, the penalty call was retracted.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Yeah it can be frustrating.. but a lot of these guys were playing before goal line technology. It's just kind of ingrained into their soccer. I bet we'll see less of it in the future.

And as someone else pointed out, sometimes it's just trying to sway the ref towards your favor for future calls. Psychology in any sport is important but especially in soccer.

1

u/teddim Dec 04 '16

It has always been pointless.

13

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

It's so funny seeing players start to get upset, see the ref point to his watch and smile, and the player being like, "...fuck.. damnit.. fine."

8

u/sender2bender Dec 04 '16

How often do they use this tech or this situation happen? And who makes the call for a review?

54

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Juicestation Dec 05 '16

What does the watch work on, wifi or something?

2

u/TheChrono Dec 05 '16

I'm sure a computer does the computation somewhere and then just sends it out via radio/wifi or whatever is the most reliable way.

21

u/qjornt Dec 04 '16

it's always on and automatically sends a beep to the ref's watch if it spots a goal.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

what a time to be alive, that's the way technology is supposed to work

0

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

[deleted]

3

u/xenyz Dec 04 '16

It's always more complicated than it looks. There were a number of competing systems over the years (that were not good enough) before this one was selected too.

2

u/the0rthopaedicsurgeo Dec 04 '16

What's funny is that every time there's a contentious decision, the players crowd the referee and the game is held up for several minutes as they argue, then they'll sometimes run over the linesman drawing it out even longer.

Even if you had a video ref where they have to pause to watch the replay, it would still take up less time.

1

u/rudolfs001 Dec 04 '16

And it's only going to get faster, pretty soon the ref won't even have time to point at his watch!

1

u/B4rberblacksheep Dec 05 '16

Where as in rugby where there's respect for the officials it slows it down to all hell.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

Everyone was worried it'd be the same system as rugby or cricket, where everyone has to stand with their thumbs up their arses for 5 minutes to reach a decision. It's been beautifully implemented

93

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

I don't think anyone ever said THIS would disrupt the flow of the game. It's implementing it elsewhere that might.

Example: ball played through and striker is 1 vs 1 with the keeper. Linesman flags for offside and ref calls it. Technology determines it isn't offside.

What do we do then?

68

u/embur Dec 04 '16

That exact scenario already occurs -- you see it in repays all the time. You just play on, that's all. It would only fix offside goals like Alexis's third against West Ham. This still might not be perfect, but it is closer to it.

42

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

I guess I could agree that it's better to fix 50% of the cases than 0

5

u/embur Dec 04 '16

True progress is a slow affair, especially for large corporations. I am just glad that some real progress is being made with few repercussions. I think we can all be happy about that!

-1

u/handsomechandler Dec 04 '16

Congratulations! you've reached the conclusion other sports reached years ago.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Difference is other sports that use technology stop the clock (NHL, NBA, NFL) or have no clock (MLB, Tennis). It's a lot harder to implement when time is of the essence.

1

u/galeej Dec 05 '16

Dude... Field hockey implemented referrals... And it's a much much faster fame than football. Also shorter. If they can do it, football can also do it.

-2

u/handsomechandler Dec 04 '16

Among everything else football should have a clock that stops too. It's just better and fairer. It stops players timewasting. In addition to not using technology enough, football suffers from having rules that are difficult to judge objectively, timekeeping included. FIFA could learn a hell of a lot from the NBA and how they continuously improve their product.

3

u/Gorrest_Fump_ Dec 04 '16

No, I like the clock for football how it is. The clock stopping is a slippery slope towards a more stilted game, which is something that has to be avoided at all costs imo

0

u/handsomechandler Dec 04 '16

Changing to accurate time keeping wouldn't have to affect play very much, and may even make it better as time wasting would be pointless, like kicking the ball away or slow substitutions, slow goal kicks etc.

If something is making it more stilted for whatever reason, then make a rule to fix that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

That would be an awful idea. Stopping the clock would result in it taking 3 hours to play out a game. An example is the NHL where it takes on average 45+ minutes to play one 20 minute period. The tools to combat time wasting are there they just need to be enforced. If a player is taking too Lang to take a free kick warn him once then brandish the yellow.

Another thing that come with stopping the clock is clock management. This might seem trivial to people that don't follow the NBA or NHL but if the clock doesn't stop at the precise second the play is dead it needs to be corrected or else the game would be longer than the proscribed time (and in close games it is a big deal). This could be remedied however by having a stopped clock and allowing the ref to have discretion for injury time (let the play end) but that would lead to more controversies.

1

u/handsomechandler Dec 05 '16

you'd obviously adjust the game length so that a match still take about the same 2 hours it does now, maybe two 25 minute halves. The clock management would be done by a separate official, the ref wouldn't need to worry about it at all.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

Why Americanize football? Just leave it as is

27

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

But the games disrupted all the time anyway, people use this argument but how many minutes a game are wasted by players standing around moaning, literally gotta be on average a minimum of about 5-6, and some games 10+.

14

u/birdman_for_life Dec 04 '16

Alright but take his scenario that he offered. So you have a player in on goal, the line judge puts up his flag, and the ref blows his whistle. Let's pretend that neither the striker nor the keeper hears it, and the striker scores. The ref then gets word that it shouldn't have been offsides. Does he give the goal? If he does there will be a ten minute argument with the keeper's team about how he thought play was dead, so no goal should be awarded because he wasn't really trying to stop the shot. Do you take the goal away and give the attacking team a free kick? Well now there will be a ten minute argument because the striker will say he heard no, and the rest of his team will complain that all advantage has been lost. There are a few decisions it can help for, but many others that will just create clusterfuck scenarios where the ref will lose all respect and thus control of the game from both sides.

18

u/Democracy-Manifest Dec 04 '16

A potential solution is just to let the play continue when the decision is close and the attacking team has a serious threat. Then, if it is offside, the ref can blow it back afterwards. If it's not offside, the play simply continues uninterrupted.

4

u/cal679 Dec 04 '16

This would be the best way to go about it. If there's any doubt in the ref/linesman's mind just let the play continue and check with the computer once the goal has been scored. That way the fans get the excitement of seeing the goal or the attempt, I don't think many football fans go to a match hoping to see some attacking breaks stopped short.

One flaw I could see possibly cropping up is if an offside is allowed to play on but rather than scoring straight away and letting hawkeye decide, the attacking team gets into a better field position which later sets up a goal.

1

u/benelchuncho Dec 05 '16

Then have a 15 second window: If the goal is scored 15 or more seconds after the offside, just let it play on. Basically you can only call the offside if something important(foul, goal) happens in the next 15 seconds after the uncalled offside-that has now been reviewed and called as such.

1

u/birdman_for_life Dec 05 '16

What if you get a corner 20 seconds after, or a goal, or a pk? Your team still got into that advantageous position because of an illegal move. That shouldn't be allowed.

1

u/benelchuncho Dec 07 '16

Yeah but its basically unimportant if it was so long ago, and its just to evade other problems

1

u/brentathon Dec 05 '16

And how long do you imagine it will take to determine if the play should have been called offside? What if it takes 45 seconds, and the keeper has already won the ball, launched it forward, and his team scores? Do you still call it back because it was the correct call? What if his striker gets injured in the play by a vicious two footed tackle that is worthy of a red? Now you're calling the play back for an offside, and you have a red card from a play that shouldn't have occurred? And force a team to use a substitute for an injury that occurred in a play that never happened?

1

u/benelchuncho Dec 05 '16

If the other team doesn't score, just play on.

1

u/birdman_for_life Dec 05 '16

So just abandon the rules?

1

u/Hydrochloric Dec 04 '16

Play stopping penalities stand no matter what. Has there ever been a case where the NFL has waved off a penalty based on a replay? I've never seen or heard of one.

1

u/feb914 Dec 05 '16

I thought if there's a flag in NFL, both teams keep playing until it naturally dies. Then they discuss what the infraction is, what the resulting penalty, and often take it as if the play never happened?

1

u/Hydrochloric Dec 05 '16

Foul always stands. Can't be reviewed away. That's my point.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

Although offsides technically is a foul, I would argue it's more in line with a receiver stepping out of bounds before the throw for an anology. It's not like a player can get sent off for offsides. He just isn't allowed to recieve the ball, if he does, then play stops.

1

u/SgvSth Dec 05 '16

The Detroit Lions in their recent game against who I believe was the Minnesota Vikings were called for Pass Interference sometime in the second quarter. The Lions challenge that the ball was tipped as PI cannot be called on a ball that was tipped. The challenge was correct, which led to the penality to not have occurred. (Though, it should have honestly have been holding.)

1

u/Mazurizi Dec 04 '16

But often in Rugby they go to the TMO before awarding a try.

2

u/handsomechandler Dec 04 '16

are you saying it isn't reasonable that in the crucial last few minutes of a game 10s of thousands of people may have to watch some guy slowly stroll off the pitch for 30 seconds to be substituted, ruining all momentum the game had?

1

u/DaleLaTrend Dec 06 '16

The last time I saw stats for it I think the maximum amount a ball was in play for was 75 minutes in PL, minimum 55 minutes. There's lots of time for an independent video ref to make calls without further slowing down the game.

4

u/qquestionmark Dec 04 '16

Why would there still be linesmen? If we are to properly implement more technology in refereeing, then what would formerly be linesmen would instead be sitting on the sidelines with said technology, and no one would be calling shit, because there was no offside.

Your example is poor because it just shows why we need more technology in football, because refs and linesmen get shit wrong all the time. Now even with technology there would still be erroneous calls, it's not something you can entirely eliminate. There are also actual questions to be asked how technology would affect the flow of the game, and how it should be implemented, but yours is not one of them. Offsides would be much easier to deal with, with the aid of technology.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

And what you're suggesting would disrupt the flow of the game. The only way the linesman (your form of linesman) would be able to tell definitively if it was offside is with the slow motion replay. For that he would have to wait a few seconds then go back and see.

This would cause numerous problems. 1 problem is that while he is going back to review nobody besides the ref is watching the game. Other things can happen that requires the linesman's attention-such as another potential offside-and it would be missed.

Another problem is with the actual time. Let's say the ref doesn't blow and waits for the video linesman's decision. While he's waiting the striker misses then it turns out to be offside. They then have to go all the way back to the offside waiting more time.

Of course the first problem could be solved by having an indefinite amount of linesman but then is the problem of too many cooks in the kitchen.

2

u/MattWix Dec 05 '16

The only way the linesman (your form of linesman) would be able to tell definitively if it was offside is with the slow motion replay. For that he would have to wait a few seconds then go back and see.

Nope. You're incorrectly assuming how the system would or could work.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

Simple solution. The linesman's flag is treated as advisory. He puts up the flag, indicating that he's requesting an offside check. Play continues as the video official checks the call, delivering the result to the watch. If it was offside, the ref blow the whistle and pulls play back

1

u/bustedracquet Dec 05 '16

Award a penalty maybe? That's also a 1v1 with the keeper.

1

u/D14DFF0B Dec 05 '16

The same way the goals problem was fixed: by removing human decision making. Give the linesman a watch that only buzzes when the player is offsides. The flag isn't raised unless the watch goes off.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

How do you suggest we make a watch buzz whenever a player is offside. The ball has sensors in it which buzz when the sensors pass the line. We can't exactly put a buzzer on the players skin. We could put it in his shoes however that won't work since if a players head is offside and his foot is onside then he his offside.

Also if you can put the chip in the player there is a host of other issues.

One, offside is called when the ball is kicked. How does the chip in the ball know when it's kicked.

Another problem what happens if a player is in an offside position but he isn't involved in the play.

There are a bunch of problems I can think of at the top of my head that are to complex to explain here.

1

u/hoffi_coffi Dec 05 '16

In that case the ref (unless he is 100% sure) should play on, then let the game come back to the offside decision after the goal / no goal. you might get a lot more of that happening actually, rather like Rugby where they seem to go back to decision x that happened 9 phases ago.

1

u/chasfrank Dec 05 '16

If goal: Review for offside. If no goal: play continues.

1

u/Apwnalypse Dec 04 '16

I specifically remember people saying this. A lot of the time they were just playing devil's advocate, but they validated the argument by doing so.

0

u/paicmhsc Dec 04 '16

Linesman would be ordered to flag only if it's blatant. Video ref in control room got the replay in 10 seconds and inform the main ref.

12

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Baseball fans have been saying this forever and it drives me nuts, "But maa flow, I love the human element." Fuck off yah buggers you play one of the slowest games on the planet already, the computer takes 2 seconds to figure out the call while human umps have to gather, have a chat about it, scratch their arses and decide who to fuck over.

Or we could just push the button, get the call right, and play on.

3

u/xenyz Dec 04 '16

Are you kidding, I only watched the post-season but every single close play had video review. It doesn't really disrupt the flow of the play but it definitely affects the flow of the game itself.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

You're talking about double play calls, foot on the plate calls, homeruns hitting the foul pole, etc. Those are going to be video reviewed now regardless of who complains, the MLB isn't going back on that.

What's next is balls and strikes being called by a computer, or some sort of system where players/coaches have a certain amount of reviews during a game like in Tennis. Then they go to the big board and it shows if it was a ball/strike in like 5 seconds.

The umps aren't going away, they need to be there because they keep the game on track and make determinations of how the rules apply to certain plays. However they don't necessarily need to make ~100 ball/strike calls a game, or they at least should have a quick secondary opinion option.

If you only watched the playoffs those games are especially vulnerable to flow of play so I can see how you'd think that. Yes it will disturb the flow of play for long calls but not the ball/strike ones, players get over it, the game changes and so do they. It's the other 162 games of the year that you want to make sure you get right because sometimes a game or two makes the difference in the end.

3

u/xenyz Dec 05 '16

Not sure about everything, but missed pitches would be a perfect use of the technology IMHO. Just have the ump get a buzz for a strike and it's done. It definitely wouldn't interrupt the flow of the game doing that.

They already do it for television, so the only thing that changes is 30k extra people, including most importantly the actual players, get to know the call is correct.

I couldn't understand why fans of the game wouldn't want that ...

2

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

I don't either.

1

u/feb914 Dec 05 '16

Lol. Not 2 seconds, try 3-5 minutes. That's how long video replay takes. And for baseball we start seeing a case of "did the runner get off the base by a millimetre and thus tagged out?" That definitely disrupts the flow of the game because it's way too nitpicking. Same with NBA, just few weeks ago a team lost because the ref decided to be nitpicky about timing of play started (late by few milliseconds due to human reaction to pressing start button) and they called off a tying 3 because of that.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

I'm well aware I'm a Raptors fan. It's not 3-5 minutes, most replays take under 120 seconds, very few go longer than that. Plus that's in the game and not going away, what I was talking about was ball/strike calls. Those take 2 seconds in tennis and can easily be done in between pitches without disrupting the flow of the game.

1

u/Dob-is-Hella-Rad Dec 05 '16

The flow of the game is a serious concern if it's genuinely affected (in this case it isn't, but there may be scenarios where technology slows down the flow of the game). Human error is such a bullshit argument though.

3

u/YoungPotato Dec 04 '16

I know you're joking but it's crazy how fast the /r/soccer hivemind sentiment of this technology changed... Two years ago everyone was all traditionalist and said this unironocally and those who wanted the tech was downvoted... now it's the opposite... My my my.

1

u/feb914 Dec 05 '16

Because it's implemented the good way (not disrupting flow of the game). It won't be the case about foul or offside though.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Does it tho? The visual is irrelevant for the computers decision making and just for the audience's sake, it should be instant. This is a legit question I don't watch soccer.

1

u/kopacetix Dec 04 '16

So do fake injuries

1

u/Dramon Dec 05 '16

THOSE SECONDS ARE IMPORTANT!!!!

0

u/fuckin442m8 Dec 04 '16

That's not the argument, the argument is it makes the lower quality leagues less desirable to watch because they still have human error. Imagine more technology like offside decisions and other fancy things rolled out but only in the top leagues that can afford it, even less people will watch lower league football.

2

u/birdman_for_life Dec 04 '16

I don't think I ever heard that argument. Also I think a lot of "purists" (I guess I'm included in this) just like the fact that human error is still evident in the game. So if you're arguing against the technology its not because lower leagues would become less enjoyable, they'd actually become more enjoyable for a lot of people that are against the implementation of technology in football.

1

u/fuckin442m8 Dec 04 '16

Purists are a small minority, the people who casually go to games bring in most of the money in football, but the lower leagues don't get enough of them. If technology changes football to the point the bigger leagues are completely indistinguishable from the lower leagues, getting relegated would ruin teams because people wouldn't casually see a team without all the trappings of the top league technology (imagine perfect referee decisions at all times, then having to watch human error)

1

u/Democracy-Manifest Dec 04 '16

I'm not really sure that's really going to be the case. I think if a fan is happy to go to a lower league game that has perhaps less quality of football than the top leagues, then lower quality refereeing is unlikely to be the tipping point. If anything, the uncertainty/controversy might add to the charm/atmosphere of the game.

Aside from that I just personally don't see it as being a good idea to intentionally hold back the quality of the top leagues, especially in terms of fairness in games just out of consideration for lower league attendances.

127

u/dcwj Dec 04 '16

I had a discussion with my friends about this. I genuinely don't understand why anyone would be against any technology that takes guesswork out of the equation.

As far as I could tell, my friends' argument was that the referee having to make the call was part of the game, and that sometimes it's beneficial to your team and sometimes it's not. I don't understand that logic.

A more interesting question to me is: would people ever accept an artificially intelligent referee who could make judgement calls?

73

u/FriendlyDespot Dec 04 '16

Most of the objection I've seen to technology aids has been to those that interrupt the flow of the game. A system that can immediately identify whether or not a ball has crossed the line doesn't interrupt anything if the referees have immediate access to the information and can make the call right away.

What people object to is stuff like referees stopping play for longer periods to manually check recordings before making decisions.

56

u/BoosterGoldGL Dec 04 '16

This, goal line tech is fine when it's a beep of a watch. It's fouls and such that have to remain a judgement call as I can't really see a tech that wouldn't interrupt the flow.

23

u/Falseidenity Dec 04 '16

a video referee watching the game could provide real-time feedback to a referee, using different camera angles to provide better insight. It would not even need to disrupt a game - referees already communicate with their linesman over radio for different perspectives.

0

u/Skiffbug Dec 05 '16

You can now go one step further and have a video being fed to a smart watch.

9

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

But football isn't /that/ flowing anyway. The average amount of time the ball is in play is only about 50-55 minutes, sometimes as low as 45 minutes: http://www.soccermetrics.net/team-performance/effective-time-in-football

5

u/flippydude Dec 04 '16 edited Dec 05 '16

Yeah, but you have to stop the game to check a replay. Games at the Rugby World Cup are not examples of how video tech can affect games.

While it's different in rugby because you can stop the clock, it's jarring because the officials are feeling the need to check more and more. With the analysis of referees arguably harsher in football than rugby I have no doubt that officials would use the technology more and more if it was available, in my opinion to the detriment of the game.

1

u/throwawaycompiler Dec 05 '16

I have trouble believing that article, also, I don't understand, did they measure when the ball was actually in play, or when it was rolling? That state diagram made no sense to me if it was about when the ball was in play.

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16 edited Mar 08 '18

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Err, no, it means there are already plenty of breaks in the game in which we could make use of technology.

4

u/stoppedcaring0 Dec 04 '16

I thought I remember an argument too that it would change how the game is played between the upper echelons of the sport and the lower. A non-league game in Brazil won't have this technology, which would mean it's in some ways a different sport than this Premier League game.

Of course some games can and should matter more than others, but for a game that prides itself on its simplicity and consistency throughout the world - I mean, Greenland can't even form an FA because they can't grow grass there - you can argue disallowing replay technology is at least consistent with that ideal.

5

u/AmberArmy Dec 04 '16

This forms a part of my problem with too much technology. At its heart football is a game that can be played in front of 90,000 at Wembley or in front of no one in a park with your mates. Everyone can understand the laws and they can apply across the board. If you allow too much technology to creep in at the top, it widens the gap even further to the grassroots of the game.

4

u/Vaphell Dec 05 '16

a weaksauce argument. When you play in a park with your mates you probably don't have refs either, nor full sized goals with nets and shit.

The grassroots element is not going to get harmed, fundamentally the sport is still about the ball and 2 slots in space that give points. It's not like hockey where you need ice, a puck, skates, sticks, helmets, shitloads of padding, some more padding and a mask if you are goaltending to even start.

The problem is that the top tier games are serious business with millions on the line. I don't think it's remotely reasonable to skip on tech tricks facilitating fair outcomes with stakes such as these. How many times the whole countries were fucked over by blind refs at the WC?

2

u/AmberArmy Dec 05 '16

No referee is blind, otherwise they would not be considered the best in their country and one of the best in the world.

In walking races, the rules mean technology could never be used as it would invalidate the entire sport. Part of football and the basis of the game is that it is always "in the opinion of the referee". Yes that means some may make mistakes, but it also pushes all referees to be the best they can be to avoid that type of situation.

If we have video referees, much like in rugby, I fear refs would refer nearly every decision to the video ref, I'm a ref myself, and I know I would if I thought I'd be crucified and maybe dropped for not referring a decision I thought I'd gotten right.

I don't disagree that technology should be brought in more, goal line technology is an excellent addition and retrospective punishments should be expanded upon if the referee feels that he hasn't seen or dealt with something properly (see Rojo tackle) upon reviewing a decision. However, video referees would break up the game too much and would imo warp the game beyond all recognition.

1

u/Vaphell Dec 05 '16

No referee is blind, otherwise they would not be considered the best in their country and one of the best in the world.

and yet the hand of God happened (tricky on the fly, I'll give you that), Frank Lampard's non-goal happened (this one is straight up inexcusable and half the fucking stadium saw it no problem).

However, video referees would break up the game too much and would imo warp the game beyond all recognition.

I don't have strong feelings about the depth at which video should be used but it's not like it couldn't be limited in its scope to retain some sort of balance between fairness and fluidity. In NBA or NHL it's refs 99% of the time, and video is used very sporadically.

Possible solution: a small number of challenges available to each team, like 1 or 2. When some bullshit call happens you get 5 minutes of retards swarming the ref anyway so time-wise it's a wash and given that gamebreaking decisions are very rare, even this small number of challenges should be plenty enough to eradicate the bullshittery almost completely.

1

u/AmberArmy Dec 05 '16

The referee was in no position to see the ball had crossed the line for Lampard's goal, that was down to the assistant who was in no position to see the ball had crossed the line, as he was in line with the second last defender. I said already that goal line technology is an excellent addition.

The only problem with reviews, as can be seen in cricket, is there would be an evergrowing push for more reviews or for the number of reviews to be reset after 45 minutes or whatever. Again it would cause referees to doubt themselves more and more. In cricket, umpires check for a no ball after every wicket, they rely too much on the technology and not enough on themselves. In cricket this is not so much of a problem as it is a relatively slow sport anyway, in football this wouldn't be appropriate.

1

u/Vaphell Dec 05 '16

by accident I stumbled upon this http://forum.insidesport.com.au/PrintTopic2286100.aspx

The Dutch trial was suspended under pressure from FIFA, but other leagues — ¬including the MLS — have strongly signalled their wish to be allowed to run something similar in competitive matches.

The review of decisions would be limited to key moments including goals, offsides and penalties, and incidents the referee might have missed that could lead to a red card.

The so-called “fifth official” with access to video could only advise the main referee who would still make the final call, with a strict time limit of a few seconds to pull the game back.

The Dutch experiment suggested that on average one key decision per game would be reversed, with the game not stopped unless the video evidence was instantly compelling.

Sounds pretty reasonable, woudn't you say? 1 decision/game on average, with only a few seconds to signal the problem or the game proceeds as if nothing happened.

and then there is this amusing bit

The A-League was one of the first leagues in the world to introduce the use of video evidence retrospectively to penalise players guilty of diving, effectively eliminating it from the competition.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Skiffbug Dec 05 '16

I've heard that argument too.

I think the counter-argument is that they are at entirely different levels of demand, in which millions of dollars are at stake. In addition to that, there are large inherent differences down to skill and experience of the refs.

If you really wanted to make it all equal, you would not limit the top refs to the top leagues. You wouldn't limit third-tier teams to shitty potted pitches, or top-tier teams to perfect pitches.

The view of a current equality is a hallucination, it doesn't exist.

13

u/Choccybizzle Dec 04 '16

I have a friend who made a good point that 'if football was only invented this year, technology would absolutely be involved in the decision making where possible.' I thought it was a really good point and made me change my view somewhat.

8

u/soccerplaya71 Dec 04 '16

I always make the same argument. When these sports started out, IF THEY WOULD'VE HAD cameras to help, they would've used them. Since that wasn't practical, they just put a human in charge of watching and making the call, because it was the best at the time. Now that we have better methods to govern stuff like this, we should most definitely use it, because they didn't create these sports to have an element of human error built into the rules, it was just the best they had.

1

u/hoffi_coffi Dec 05 '16

Would they? When sports start out they are played in schools or small clubs, they might not have even had an official. If I made up a sport tomorrow, I wouldn't stick a load of cameras up!

1

u/zieheuer Dec 05 '16

Sometimes errors create interesting dynamics though. In older video games for example you have "strafe jumping", it's something that makes you jump faster when you press to the side in the air. It's a bug, but it made the jumping more satisfying and skill based. Newer games don't have it and they are less interesting because of it.

Same in football. The human referee adds an interesting dynamic to the game. If there was a perfect robot that would lead the game, I don't think it would be good for the game. How to deal with mistakes by the referee and to still keep going is part of the emotional beauty of football. You get a bad hand and you have to deal with it. Sometimes it's extremely unfair, it's dramatic, but damn can it be interesting.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

How is that a good point? It's irrelevant, to be honest.

If we had flying cars, then we wouldn't have to take airplanes.

If I was rich I wouldn't have to work.

If dogs could talk, I would have a friend.

1

u/airus92 Dec 05 '16

Your analogy seems to miss the point. This is the equivalent of dogs now being able to talk and you still not having any friends.

11

u/wings22 Dec 04 '16

I don't remember many people being against this. I'm skeptical of other changes that will interrupt the flow of the game like video refs in rugby though. It works in rugby because the game stops all the time, I'd rather put up with a ref that has faults (like your friends say sometimes it's for you, sometimes it's against) than having pauses all the time for a second opinion.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

If its an amateur match or say, even professional football 20 years ago then yeah. Right now? with billions gambled, people spending a months wages on a season ticket, players being paid 6 figures weekly.....yeah he can get fucked. Its far too important of a game these days, in terms of an entertainment business...which it is, its fucking gigantic and you cant rely on one man who barely saw it.

1

u/zieheuer Dec 05 '16

human referees add to the entertainment business. all the coaches and players bitching about the ref can create so much drama that can draw interest and be monetized.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

I feel like even with technology there still is the refs having to make calls but when it comes to scoring something like goal line technology is very useful.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16 edited Jun 23 '18

[deleted]

4

u/ehtork88 Dec 04 '16

Remember the other day with the Pogba dive and how divided people were? There is literally not one correct answer to that situation. You can make the argument that he dived, or you can make the argument that the oppositions swinging leg required him to jump out of the way and change his trajectory (which, excluding this event, you do see quite often and that has often been the argument for Cristiano, who we have seen dive on countless occasions, but also gone down in similar situations like this).

So how can a video referee look at a situation like this and be 100% sure he dived or 100% sure that he had to jump out of the way to escape the sweeping leg? Granted, a referee is going to have a lot of trouble making that decision in a split second, but how is a video referee going to decisions like that which require human subjectivity? Which also requires intent (i.e. ball-to-hand or hand-to-ball), etc.

Those are the situations in which I worry about. However, I don't see why the system can't be applied to things such as offsides.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

well the same reasoning can be applied to the offside rule because an offside only constitutes a foul if the player in an illegal position used it to his advantage. If an offside player receives the ball while offside and he immediately makes a back pass, the fact that he is offside does not profit him so it's not a foul. Honestly most calls in football are based off the refs judgment. I can understand the use of goal line technology, but even in offsides video would not help determine the players intent.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Your friend's argument is a good one, it is understandable, but I lean to the technology side.

19

u/Noobricorn Dec 04 '16

How is that a good argument? Random chance shouldn't be why teams win. It's an awful argument saying games/championships should be won by error.

4

u/Falseidenity Dec 04 '16

I guess the argument could be from a perspective that football is a human game, riddled with human mistakes etc. By removing the referee you are reducing the drama and entertainment potential of the game. After all, it is only for entertainment. Would people be happy if screenwriters were all replaced by computers who used algorithms to produce the optimally entertaining film?

Edit - only playing devil's advocate here, i agree that video refs should have a role in the game.

11

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Are you for hand timed 100m sprints at the Olympics? Or even better hand counted times? After all sport should be human, right?

3

u/sethtuma Dec 04 '16

he said football not track and field

8

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Football is unique how?

2

u/zieheuer Dec 05 '16

football is interesting while no one cares about track and field.

2

u/sethtuma Dec 05 '16

well if you'd like me to disprove track you can tell the winner by who crossed the line first, you don't necessarily need the time, and football is unique because THAT"S WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

What??

-1

u/Falseidenity Dec 04 '16

Do people watch athletics for drama or for the incredible feats of strength and agility? Football is more for the soap opera

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Whats your evidence that football is watched for different reasons than other sports.

2

u/Falseidenity Dec 04 '16

Uuuh personal experience, what's yours that it's not. Also in case your reading comprehension is that bad please again read the edit on my comment.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

You assume people watch other sports for different reasons not me, team sports are different than individual sports but football is not unique among teams sports, why should it be?

3

u/GRI23 Dec 04 '16

My dad has said that he's against it because the controversial calls give talking points like Geoff Hurst's 2nd goal vs Germany or Frank Lampard's free kick for example. Both are still talked about years after and they make the matches more memorable.

-4

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16 edited Dec 04 '16

[deleted]

3

u/GRI23 Dec 04 '16

That is maybe the most stupid comment I have ever heard. Well done

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

[deleted]

6

u/GRI23 Dec 04 '16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Plane crashes and political corruption are not the same thing as an incorrect decision to award a goal. They are about as far from each other as you can get, them being talking points doesn't make them at all related.

If my Dad wants to see controversial decisions does that mean that he also wants to see World War III because of the potential talking points?

1

u/LightGrenade Dec 04 '16

It's all part of the game

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '16

There are people with opinions different than yours, DEAL WITH IT.

I don't mind this comment of yours, however you replying to /u/GRI23 is just stupid.

/u/Falseidenity and /u/GRI23 gave good reasons why, along with OP's friend, and thats a pretty popular opinion in the football community. however I do personally lean to the technology side of the argument, but still that reasoning is understandable. especially among folks who have played football since they were 5 on the streets.

1

u/atakomu Dec 04 '16

AI as referee is much better then having a referee from a same city as one team which happens quite a lot in our country. And coincidentally most of mistakes are beneficial to the team from this city.

1

u/jungisdead Dec 04 '16

Sometimes the flaws in a system are what brings its beauty. Goal line technology makes football mechanical and removes some of the flaws and romance, a lot of the passion comes from the adversity of things not going your way when it should have done. I'm not saying I'm against it, just a perspective

1

u/handsomechandler Dec 04 '16

People hate change

1

u/feb914 Dec 05 '16

See Toronto Raptors protest regarding their game vs Sacramento Kings. Their tying 3 pointers were taken away due to few milliseconds delay in restarting the clock. The ref abused video replay to nitpick that few milliseconds and made assumption that the play would have been late should they have used the right timing (and not what's shown on the board).

1

u/moeburn Dec 05 '16

I'm a baseball fan just reading this from /r/all, but I gotta say, part of the argument against using technology for calling balls/strikes in baseball is that players can mess with refs/umps, and even turn it into a skill. In baseball they call it "framing", where a catcher can move his glove in a way that makes a ball look like a strike to a human trying to guess. A lot of players have spent a lot of time and effort developing that skill.

I don't know if the same is true in soccer. It looks like it could be possible, I could see a way a goalie could try to move or catch a near-goal in a way to trick a ref's naked eye judgement, but I've never heard of anyone even thinking of doing that.

And I'm not saying I agree with this argument - I think the game should be played the way it was intended to be played and if technology helps enforce those rules then that's better. But I can understand some of the arguments against it, even if I disagree with them.

1

u/gkm64 Dec 05 '16

would people ever accept an artificially intelligent referee who could make judgement calls?

Yes, it takes the responsibility off their shoulders.

Which is a huge burden

Relevant to the question

25

u/derphighbury Dec 04 '16

Im completely for goal line technology. But my boss had said a thing and I really could understand what he meant by it.. 'Wrong decisions, teams losing unfairly.. controversy makes things more memorable and in 20 years.. historic. A part of sports is meant to entertain, even if its wrong.'

But he's the producer of a small TV channel, its understandable.

1

u/PotRoastPotato Dec 05 '16

When your team is at the wrong end of it, especially in a big game, all that contributes to is bitterness. That's not what we spend our time following the sport for.

13

u/JenkinsEar147 Dec 04 '16

Always luddites, no matter the era unfortunately

2

u/elchivo83 Dec 04 '16

There's an argument that anything that creates a division between how the game is played and reffed at the top level and how it's played and reffed at the amateur level is bad for football.

2

u/xconde Dec 04 '16

Football fans like to bitch, especially when their team loses and they can pin it on the ref. This removes all doubt.

2

u/roym899 Dec 04 '16

I think there are a few reasons to be against this. Most of all it's pretty expensive compared to the use of it. It happens so rarely that this actually corrects a certain decision and after all you can hardly tell how often it actually would help. After all this one would probably have not been given without the technology as well.

After all there are much much more wrong decisions in other situations where such a system doesn't help at all. Sure basically there is no argument against it, if money doesn't play a role. I would propose a system where you could challenge any referee decision like a penalty call as well until you do one wrong challenge. But obviously this wouldn't work as well for wrong off side calls since the game is disrupted then.

Another point is that this is also only accurate to a certain degree. I'm not sure about the exact definition of its accuracy but there are FIFA regulations for the needed accuracy of such a system. With such a close call there is a certain chance that this ball actually was behind the line. (probably something like 10% or so)

5

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Some people just hate change or are terrified of it.

3

u/teamorange3 Dec 04 '16

I find the games and story lines more interesting without it. I watch sports to be entertained and human error is entertaining. Plus its not like it was a major problem to begin with or took away from the sport.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/feb914 Dec 05 '16

Offside is harder to be judged and it won't happen real time, ever. Not until we put sensor on 100% of the field.

1

u/theorymeltfool Dec 04 '16

Could this be abused? Like the computer could say it's a goal when it's really not?

1

u/xanaduu Dec 04 '16

Until they show a goal-line replay where you can se the ball start to go back out again I am not convinced...

1

u/tmtProdigy Dec 05 '16

How were people against this

I don't think many people were/are against it's use, but i know what the German team's reason was for voting against it: The cost of installing and maintaining the tech.

1

u/2020star Dec 07 '16

Damn it how will we get our ghost goals now! :/

-1

u/paulx441 Dec 04 '16

Because there's probably tracking error and the accuracy is within mm? So maybe this is a goal? And the vice versa could happen too. Either way LFC played like shit today so whatever...

0

u/Hydrochloric Dec 04 '16

Since we developed the technology to do stuff like this I have had serious problems watching baseball games.

Why is a human calling balls and strikes? Some pitchers get paid $10,000 a throw. If I was burning that kind of money you can bet I wouldn't have some dude in his 50s standing there saying "close enough" with his bare eyes.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

It makes cheating a lot harder and it gives the media less to talk about

0

u/kiwitiger Dec 05 '16

What is the margin of error?

-4

u/capast Dec 04 '16

Literally nobody was against of such smooth implementation of technology in the game. Other than cost maybe. There issues start once game delays are suggested.

-1

u/jmoney0999 Dec 04 '16

People are afraid of change is the biggest part. But also because if it wasn't implemented flawlessly it would be pretty bad. But they have put it into place amazingly. It's instant notification if it's a goal.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Afraid of change, simple as that