|
Post by snowqueen on Jun 28, 2010 13:34:33 GMT 1
No point whingeing, the Germans deserved to win and you can't say what would have happened but the score at 2-2 would have meant a whole different game.
|
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,578
ONLINE
|
Post by vastar iner on Jun 28, 2010 14:36:53 GMT 1
I dont believe technology should be brought in for every offside decision, it will break the game up, if we are using technology or extra assistants, it should only be for goalline technology. Mexico didn't see the offside against them, until they saw the video screen! No, they appealed for it at the time. There's no need for complications for video referrals and whatnot. Just have the "key" match official watching the video, and when he sees an obvious error, he can relay it to the "pitch" referee. Then it could be used almost seamlessly. He could even be reviewing whilst the game is going on, it would never take more than 30 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 28, 2010 16:24:37 GMT 1
Someone was saying on Radio 5 Live earlier that the goal technology was in fact tried in a South American league not long ago but didn't work. It involved a magnetic strip along the other side of the white goal line and a microchip inside the ball. A bleep would sound on the referee's watch if the ball went on to or passed over the magnetic strip, hence over the white line. The guy said he didn't know exactly why but it messed up many times so was abandoned as not very good. Once it failed to work when it was a goal with the ball hitting the back of the net. Maybe too high to trigger the signal from the strip.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Jun 28, 2010 19:53:49 GMT 1
Unless it's in the very centre of the ball a single chip can't be used to determine whether the whole of the ball was over the whole of the line. That's always been part of FIFA's argument, that there isn't yet a 100% reliable system.
|
|
|
Post by Mart!n on Jun 28, 2010 20:40:29 GMT 1
Someone was saying on Radio 5 Live earlier that the goal technology was in fact tried in a South American league not long ago but didn't work. It involved a magnetic strip along the other side of the white goal line and a microchip inside the ball. A bleep would sound on the referee's watch if the ball went on to or passed over the magnetic strip, hence over the white line. The guy said he didn't know exactly why but it messed up many times so was abandoned as not very good. Once it failed to work when it was a goal with the ball hitting the back of the net. Maybe too high to trigger the signal from the strip. That's no different to what is used in Tennis and it works, so how is it different for football.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Jun 28, 2010 20:52:43 GMT 1
Someone was saying on Radio 5 Live earlier that the goal technology was in fact tried in a South American league not long ago but didn't work. It involved a magnetic strip along the other side of the white goal line and a microchip inside the ball. A bleep would sound on the referee's watch if the ball went on to or passed over the magnetic strip, hence over the white line. The guy said he didn't know exactly why but it messed up many times so was abandoned as not very good. Once it failed to work when it was a goal with the ball hitting the back of the net. Maybe too high to trigger the signal from the strip. That's no different to what is used in Tennis and it works, so how is it different for football. In tennis the ball hits the ground and that's what the machine detects. When a football goes over the line there could be a body between the line and the detector.
|
|
ligerdog7
New Member
hollyyyyyyyyyyyy..... ages get bak post laters
Posts: 1
|
Post by ligerdog7 on Jun 28, 2010 23:33:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by o on Jun 29, 2010 10:02:51 GMT 1
Strips and chips in balls is not the way forward imo, video technology, and any doubt (like in rugby with tries) and no goal, it's needed just for the once in a while occasion like the England "goal". I agree with you vastariner on a person watching a screen to see what is happening as it happens, but where would he be, pitchside, and so open to influence by managers/players, who can also see the screen?
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 29, 2010 10:09:48 GMT 1
Second round - Durban NETHERLANDS 2-1 SLOVAKIA Goals: Robben 18; Sneijder 84 Vittek (pen) 90(+4) Referee: Alberto Undiano (Spain) Second round - Johannesburg (Ellis Park) BRAZIL 3-0 CHILE Goals: Juan 35; Luis Fabiano 38; Robinho 59 Referee: Howard Webb (England)
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 29, 2010 10:13:17 GMT 1
I agree with you vastariner on a person watching a screen to see what is happening as it happens, but where would he be, pitchside, and so open to influence by managers/players, who can also see the screen? Not necessarily. They could be up in the stand, like in rugby and cricket. The refs are already mic'd up anyway. They could also make the refs' audio available to TV so we can hear the conversation when such an incident takes place.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 29, 2010 10:15:56 GMT 1
Second round | Quarter-finals | Semi-finals | FINAL | Uruguay 2 | | | | South Korea 1 | Uruguay | | | | | | | USA 1 | Ghana | | | Ghana 2 | | | | | | | | Holland 2 | | | | Slovakia 1 | Holland | | | | | | | Brazil 3 | Brazil | | | Chile 0 | | | | | | | | Argentina 3 | | | | Mexico 1 | Argentina | | | | | | | Germany 4 | Germany | | | England 1 | | | | | | | | Paraguay | | | | Japan | | | | | | | | Spain | | | | Portugal | | | |
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 29, 2010 10:38:57 GMT 1
Today will see another first-time quarter-finalist (along with Ghana) as neither Paraguay nor Japan have ever reached the last eight...
|
|
|
Post by Mart!n on Jun 29, 2010 15:16:22 GMT 1
Is is just me, the last 16 seem to be just dull to watch, only 3 European teams are thru to the last eight, with Spain or Portugal to go thru. Just hope the match tonight will liven up a bit, with Spain to go thru.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 29, 2010 17:47:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 29, 2010 17:50:43 GMT 1
Second round | Quarter-finals | Semi-finals | FINAL | Uruguay 2 | | | | South Korea 1 | Uruguay | | | | | | | USA 1 | Ghana | | | Ghana 2 | | | | | | | | Holland 2 | | | | Slovakia 1 | Holland | | | | | | | Brazil 3 | Brazil | | | Chile 0 | | | | | | | | Argentina 3 | | | | Mexico 1 | Argentina | | | | | | | Germany 4 | Germany | | | England 1 | | | | | | | | Paraguay 0(5) | | | | Japan 0(3) | Paraguay | | | | | | | Spain | | | | Portugal | | | |
|
|
|
Post by greendemon on Jun 29, 2010 18:28:22 GMT 1
looking more and more like a south american nation will win this time...
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 29, 2010 18:42:44 GMT 1
I love a penalty shoot-out. Glad we've finally seen one.
|
|
frag
Member
*Paranoid Android*
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.
Posts: 25,375
|
Post by frag on Jun 29, 2010 18:49:46 GMT 1
looking more and more like a south american nation will win this time... I think we'll see three South American nations (plus Spain) in the semi-finals.
|
|
frag
Member
*Paranoid Android*
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.
Posts: 25,375
|
Post by frag on Jun 29, 2010 18:56:14 GMT 1
I dont believe technology should be brought in for every offside decision, it will break the game up, if we are using technology or extra assistants, it should only be for goalline technology. Mexico didn't see the offside against them, until they saw the video screen! No, they appealed for it at the time. There's no need for complications for video referrals and whatnot. Just have the "key" match official watching the video, and when he sees an obvious error, he can relay it to the "pitch" referee. Then it could be used almost seamlessly. He could even be reviewing whilst the game is going on, it would never take more than 30 seconds. Agreed. The ref could ask for confirmation in the same way that they do in rugby ("is there any reason why I should not award a try/goal", etc.), and the video ref can overrule in the case of glaring errors. The wording would take care of situations where even with video, it's too close to call: the referee makes a statement like the one above, and if the video ref can't overrule him, then his initial judgment stands. There is no harm in including video replays for things like deciding whether a foul is worth a yellow or red card (red cards are also game-changing incidents), as these situations typically cause delays in play anyway. I don't think that a challenge system should be introduced, as there is an (implicit) video decision available anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jun 29, 2010 18:57:46 GMT 1
It could be an all-South-American semi.
|
|