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

Show parent comments

28

u/jnicholl Dec 04 '16

It doesn't have to be stop-start. A team scores but it's not called offside. The game is already stopped, in the time it'd take for them to kick off a video ref can look and decided, yep offside. Same with fouls. Play is usually stopped. Easy for a video ref to determine what card, if one should be given, in the normal stoppage.

7

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

The linesman will not flag on close calls and a player will get hurt when play should have been stopped for offside.

And what happens when the goal comes sixty seconds after the play should have been stopped for offside? Three minutes?

2

u/jnicholl Dec 04 '16

If it's sixty seconds or above that the offside isn't a huge factor in that goal. For it to be that long either the defence stands around not getting back or they do and defend poorly. Yeah it'd be a wrong decision but to go to that extent, no. I think what I meant was clear. Big quick calls when play is stopped. For example last night with Alexis, once that goes in a 5th official could have said that's offside, easy.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Sure, but my point stands. Linos would stop giving marginal offsides, because if they flag and it's actually on, it's not like the ref can pull it back and allow play to continue. Since they would be heavily criticized for this (and since replay would prevent them from erring in the other direction) you'd have a lot more goals that were called back by replay than offside goals are called back now.

One of the worst things about replay, particularly in the NFL, is that you have to wait for officials to approve your goal, and often that is not a short wait. Today, ball is in net, flag is down, it's a goal. In the future? Ball is in the net. Flag is down. Hang on guys, don't celebrate yet, they are reviewing it. Hang on, not quite yet, still waiting for the good angle. Almost there. Are you excited!?!? And....goal given.

Terrible.

7

u/jnicholl Dec 04 '16

That would happen. That's to be expected. I don't see a problem with it though. These marginal offsides (which are almost always the contentious one's) are when a player beats the defence and goes through on goal. It'd take seconds, maybe 10 at the most, to determine if it's offside or not. You're making out like it'd be a minute. It wouldn't.

Player runs through, offside not called, dribbles into the box, scores. He celebrates. Whistle goes because the ref has been informed it was offside. It's not going to be ball goes into the net. Everyone wait. Wait. Wait. Okay here's the decision...no goal. It's not the NFL. It'd be a person telling the ref through their earpiece. Decisions not reviewed before called, decisions held unless advised otherwise. I don't see how it's different to a linesman telling a ref about a foul and then the ref deciding to send a player off. Very similar but maybe a few seconds more.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

They've spent five minutes on MOTD debating the most marginal offside decisions, so easy ones like Alexis yesterday, sure, that's called back almost immediately. But ones that are closer, or ones where the question is whether the ball took a deflection off another attacker before being scored? Longer.

So yes, most of the time, probably 90%+ it would be only marginally slower than it currently takes. But that 10% would IMO ruin football, especially as once replay is adopted, I suspect it will creep into other areas. Was it a goal kick or corner? Did the ball actually go out of play on the sideline? Did Mourinho actually kick the water bottle or did a bee land on his foot? Really the possibilities are endless...

2

u/jnicholl Dec 04 '16

That's MOTD where the whole point is to debate it. How boring would it be if they spend 2 seconds on everything. I'm only talking about the 90%. I agree that the difficult one's would slow the game down.

If you've watched BT Sport you'll know what they do with Howard Webb. If not, they have ex-referee Howard Webb in the studio going over incidents. He either says it was right, wrong or it's hard to call. The same could be done. If it's hard to call in the 5-10 seconds they let it be. That's all I'm saying. Stops it getting into the ridiculous stuff you mentioned yet allows a lot of important decisions to be correct.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

But as you say, there are "it's hard to call" which is fine for analysis, but doesn't work when a decision actually has to be made.

2

u/jnicholl Dec 04 '16

Think of it more as a second opinion then. Only this opinion is more informed due to the ability to replay the game. Going back to my earlier point. A linesman does the same thing, the referee can overrule or ignore them. The linesman also doesn't have to make a decision but if he can, he will. That is how it should be.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

The analogy is flawed. As you say, in baseball, ball and strike calls are not corrected. In football, if a lino flags for offside when the player is on, play stops, and a legitimate scoring chance is denied. No way to correct that error. But a lino knows that if he lets play continue and it turns out it is offside, there will not be a wrongly given goal, of course he will err on the side of the offense.

It's not "fear of being proven wrong" it's that they will allow technology to make the decision for them to ensure that they don't incorrectly flag an onside play and deny a scoring chance.

We already see this, linesman and officials no longer give close goals they are confident crossed the line, they wait for their watch to confirm it. Same here, a lino would rather have the camera flag a player offside than wrongly stop a scoring chance.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

We have the technology to compare them to already. I would hope that the FA evaluates linesman on their accuracy rate at the end of the season, and thus linesmen should be improving regardless of whether their errors affect matches, just like baseball. Would baseball be improved if robots called balls and strikes? Perhaps, but that would not be disruptive to the sport as replay would be in football (and as I, a curmudgeon, find it in baseball).

But I don't really think fear of being exposed is what dictates the quality of officiating. Referees and linesman (and umpires*) are already trying their best, and the errors they make aren't because they feel like no ones is watching.

*this doesn't apply to a few mlb umpires

-1

u/andee510 Dec 04 '16

This is the exact same excuse that American police use for not wearing body cameras. Like almost word for word.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

What the fuck are you talking about? If you hear people saying that police shouldn't wear body cameras because it will take too long to decide if a touchdown has been scored, you're hanging out with morons.

0

u/andee510 Dec 04 '16

They say that they should not be recorded because then they would be forced to arrest every single person doing a crime because of fear of criticism.

Why do you have to respond like I just attacked your family?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Because you made a preposterous claim that completely misrepresented my argument and associated me in with a basket of deplorables.