goal line technology

[lymehoop]

wouldn't be surprised if Blatter is the chairman of the company

[DeepcutHoop]

It worked perfectly.

Jonathan Pearce didn't have a ****ing clue what was going on, but the technology worked quickly and correctly.

[lymehoop]

not really Deeps, initially said no goal and then contradicted it from a different angle. Hence heated debate on touch-line and 3 minute delay

[TBLOCKRANGER]

It worked perfectly.

Jonathan Pearce didn't have a ****ing clue what was going on, but the technology worked quickly and correctly.

Agree, Pearce didn't have a Scooby, I immediately worked out they were talking about 2 separate incidents & I've had a few pints at lunch courtesy of wife & daughter. You're in brazil on a good salary, at least be bright.
As I'm typing he thinks they got a 3rd ....nonsense

[nasser95]

not really Deeps, initially said no goal and then contradicted it from a different angle. Hence heated debate on touch-line and 3 minute delay

It looked like they were showing 2 impacts. One with the post initially and then one after the keeper knocked it in

[DeepcutHoop]

not really Deeps, initially said no goal and then contradicted it from a different angle. Hence heated debate on touch-line and 3 minute delay

No it didn't.

It showed that the ball didn't go in after hitting the post, but then crossed the line after hitting the keeper.

Not two different decisions for one event. Two decisions for two different events.

Obviously. The technology called it as a goal immediately, then a few people got confused over the passage of time between 'not a goal' and then 'goal'.

We'll all get used it after a few more examples and then it'll be second nature.

Pearce had an absolute disaster of a second half. Inept.

[fisnik]

I think that was pretty clear... kinda obvious what that was.

[dsqpr]

I have yet to see a camera angle that convinced me it was in. From what I have seen, it did not quite cross the line. That includes an angle that was almost exactly from the side of the goal, where you can either see daylight between the back of the post and the ball or you cannot; unfortunately, the "almost" bit makes it inconclusive.

[DeepcutHoop]

I have yet to see a camera angle that convinced me it was in. From what I have seen, it did not quite cross the line. That includes an angle that was almost exactly from the side of the goal, where you can either see daylight between the back of the post and the ball or you cannot; unfortunately, the "almost" bit makes it inconclusive.

The 14 cameras being used to judge whether it was in did though.

So we can with the old method of not knowing whether it was actually in, and no way to judge.

Or we can go with the new method of not knowing whether it was actually in, but having 14 cameras and computer modelling algorithms to confirm it.

Seems like a massive no brainer to me. This is exactly the kind of decision that the technology was brought in to judge.

Also

[dsqpr]

I totally agree with having goal line technology Deeps! However, it is not necessarily perfect. I'm just saying that on this particular decision, I'm not convinced it made the right decision. Your picture above does not convince me either.

Note that this picture is taken from the PERFECT angle for determining whether it is over or not (directly in line with the posts). This seems to show that it is not over the line, although if it was in, this picture could have been a moment before or after it actually crossed the line:

http://www.thedailystar.net/ft-controversial-second-contributes-in-three-goal-win-for-france-28767

[Del]

No it didn't.

It showed that the ball didn't go in after hitting the post, but then crossed the line after hitting the keeper.

Not two different decisions for one event. Two decisions for two different events.

Obviously. The technology called it as a goal immediately, then a few people got confused over the passage of time between 'not a goal' and then 'goal'.

We'll all get used it after a few more examples and then it'll be second nature.

Pearce had an absolute disaster of a second half. Inept.

Totally agree. Pearce made himself appear the complete **** that he is. Suggesting the technology is "clearly flawed" when it was obvious to anyone other than a trained chimp what it was judging on, ie 2 events, as it needed to in that situation. Hardly rocket science ffs.

[DeepcutHoop]

I totally agree with having goal line technology Deeps! However, it is not necessarily perfect. I'm just saying that on this particular decision, I'm not convinced it made the right decision. Your picture above does not convince me either.

Note that this picture is taken from the PERFECT angle for determining whether it is over or not (directly in line with the posts). This seems to show that it is not over the line, although if it was in, this picture could have been a moment before or after it actually crossed the line:


http://www.thedailystar.net/ft-contr...r-france-28767

If only we had the technology to judge whether those that are near impossible to judge with the naked eye are goals, to judge whether this incident that was impossible to judge with the naked eye was a goal or not.

If we aren't willing to trust it on the close ones, why bother with the technology?

[dsqpr]

This one wasn't near impossible to judge with the naked eye. My picture CLEARLY shows the ball NOT across the line! I am questioning the accuracy of what we have. If we are using technology, it is important for it to be accurate. If we see what we believe to be errors then we should point that out so that the technology can be improved!

[nasser95]

This one wasn't near impossible to judge with the naked eye. My picture CLEARLY shows the ball NOT across the line! I am questioning the accuracy of what we have. If we are using technology, it is important for it to be accurate. If we see what we believe to be errors then we should point that out so that the technology can be improved!

So you are suggesting that not only your eye, but the reaction time of the cameraman, both of which are human and are prone to human error, are more accurate than 14 specially designed, slow motion and high resolution cameras that have shown conclusively that the ball did cross the line. No one ever complains in tennis when hawkeye proves them wrong so why is the football system being questioned when it uses the exact same technology.

[DeepcutHoop]

This one wasn't near impossible to judge with the naked eye. My picture CLEARLY shows the ball NOT across the line! I am questioning the accuracy of what we have. If we are using technology, it is important for it to be accurate. If we see what we believe to be errors then we should point that out so that the technology can be improved!

But you conceded that it isn't clear if that frame was the furthest point that ball travelled to as it's a still image.

The technology may be flawed (and you haven't shown that it is, only that it might possibly be), and naturally we should always strive to look for refinements. but the technology being used is similar to that used with confidence in many other sports. Even in cricket where the system uses technology to track the predicted path of the ball it's trusted to confirm calls, so why should this system which can be far more accurate in it's measurements, not be trustworthy.

The whole demand for goal-line technology was to give a definitive answer where the officials (and even multiple angle replays) couldn't be sure.

If we're going to suggest that it's not accurate on incidents where it's really close (and there will always be someone who will disagree with the call, mainly the team the decision goes against), then why bother?

What technology would satisfy you that the ball had indeed crossed the line? Should we have Goaline-line-technology-technology?

"Hawk-eye says goal, but now we go over to Hawk-eye's Hawk-eye, to get the decision on that decision"