goal line technology

[nasser95]

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

Just because your photo is at the perfect angle, doesn't make it better than Deeps' photo. What matters is the instant in time that the photo is taken and Deeps' clearly shows the ball well over the line at that instant which means it was a goal and tech was right. As long as that is the case, your photo becomes redundant and invalid because the instant in time it was taken was different to the other photo

[gator]

The broadcast I was watching showed several different angles of it and I went from saying, goal, to no goal and back to goal! Unfortunately they only showed the animated digital image once and in that the ball looked well over the line!

[dsqpr]

The best angle shown on TV, that was almost in line with the posts (the perfect place to view it) seemed to show it wasn't in. Other angles, like the one in Deepcut's picture above, which are not nearly as good, appear to me to be inconclusive. If they have 14 cameras then they will have a picture from at least one of them that will prove conclusively it was in. If they don't release such a picture, well, I know what I will think!

As for digital re-creations, I'm pretty sure they can recreate anything you'd like to see!

[Kevin Mcleod]

The best angle shown on TV, that was almost in line with the posts (the perfect place to view it) seemed to show it wasn't in. Other angles, like the one in Deepcut's picture above, which are not nearly as good, appear to me to be inconclusive. If they have 14 cameras then they will have a picture from at least one of them that will prove conclusively it was in. If they don't release such a picture, well, I know what I will think!

As for digital re-creations, I'm pretty sure they can recreate anything you'd like to see!

Why are you insisting and keeping on with thsi rubbish, its computer technology and you cant argue with that for gods sake. It showed the graphic generated by the computer showing the whole ball over the line . Give it a rest

[DeepcutHoop]

The best angle shown on TV, that was almost in line with the posts (the perfect place to view it) seemed to show it wasn't in. Other angles, like the one in Deepcut's picture above, which are not nearly as good, appear to me to be inconclusive. If they have 14 cameras then they will have a picture from at least one of them that will prove conclusively it was in. If they don't release such a picture, well, I know what I will think!

As for digital re-creations, I'm pretty sure they can recreate anything you'd like to see!

I get the feeling you'd be hard pressed to accept a technology based decision unless it was absolutely clear from studying replays and pictures?

What GLT does for the game is give a definitive answer quickly, from a better position than the human eyes of the ref and their assistants. That's as much as we can hope for I think, without delaying the game too much, while human judges pore over all the angles.

There was far too much time spent arguing about it last night, which kind of defeated the idea, but if the ref restarts the game after the team scoring have finished celebrating we'll be OK.

There's definitely an argument that you should save the replay for the television audience maybe, but as long as it's quick enough, it should be no issue to confirm the decision quickly.

The only problem I could see last night was the system putting up the no goal decison for the point after the ball hit the post, to confirm it hadn't gone in from Benzema's original shot. That's a tweak to the system maybe to only freeze the replay at the furthest point over the line (or not as it may be), rather than at several points, even if they are salient for determining whether it was an own goal like last night.

[Nick]

The camera showed the ball hitting the post but not going over the line so therefore stating 'no goal'. When the ball came of the post it crossed the line with the keeper failing to prevent this, therefore stating 'goal'..... I can't see what the problem is.

[bakes8]

The camera showed the ball hitting the post but not going over the line so therefore stating 'no goal'. When the ball came of the post it crossed the line with the keeper failing to prevent this, therefore stating 'goal'..... I can't see what the problem is.

The problem is Jonathan Pearce is a t wat

[Nick]

The problem is Jonathan Pearce is a t wat

so true! It was cringing listening to him going OTT over something that was so blatantly obvious.... like you said t wat!

[Del]

The problem is Jonathan Pearce is a t wat

The only summing up needed.

[gator]

If we had this technology in the EPL in our first season back our quest for survival may have been easier after Hill's goal that wasn't at Bolton! Surely the cameras would show a ball two feet over the line that the officials somehow missed!

[dsqpr]

I get the feeling you'd be hard pressed to accept a technology based decision unless it was absolutely clear from studying replays and pictures?

What GLT does for the game is give a definitive answer quickly, from a better position than the human eyes of the ref and their assistants. That's as much as we can hope for I think, without delaying the game too much, while human judges pore over all the angles.

There was far too much time spent arguing about it last night, which kind of defeated the idea, but if the ref restarts the game after the team scoring have finished celebrating we'll be OK.

There's definitely an argument that you should save the replay for the television audience maybe, but as long as it's quick enough, it should be no issue to confirm the decision quickly.

The only problem I could see last night was the system putting up the no goal decison for the point after the ball hit the post, to confirm it hadn't gone in from Benzema's original shot. That's a tweak to the system maybe to only freeze the replay at the furthest point over the line (or not as it may be), rather than at several points, even if they are salient for determining whether it was an own goal like last night.

It is a NEW technology and that is why I'd like to see visual evidence to confirm that it works. Particularly on a call where the visual evidence seemed to indicate (to me, anyway) that the technology got it wrong.

Assuming the decision was correct, it worked quite well, other than showing "no goal" and then "goal". The ref gave the goal very quickly and then the players argued, as they would have done anyway even if there had been no goal line technology.

My only question is over the correctness of the decision. I know it was close but from what I have seen, I think it might have been wrong. Surely one of those 14 cameras can produce a picture to set me straight if I am wrong! All it takes is ONE picture showing daylight between the ball and the line and it is a done deal. I can't believe they don't have such a picture if it was in - it's not as though there were a bunch of players blocking different angles. And if they had such a picture you'd think they'd publish it to trumpet how great their new technology is...

[dsqpr]

Check out this video. The best angle on it is the bit that starts at 0:54 and there is no way you come even close to seeing daylight between the ball and the post. The thing that prevents this from conclusively proving that the technology made the wrong call is that the angle is not EXACTLY lined up with the posts. However, from the best available angle, it does look like NO GOAL to me (even after compensating for the fact that the angle isn't perfect).

http://www.smh.com.au/fifa-world-cup-2014/world-cup-match-report/world-cup-2014-france-thrash-honduras-as-history-made-20140616-zs8t0.html

And just to be clear, I do agree that it was much better for the decision to be made by goal line technology rather than the assistant referee, since the latter would have just been guessing anyway on such a close call that happened so quickly.

[fisnik]

Don't see why anyone would have any reason what's so ever to doubt what the goal line technology is saying... I mean this is exactly the reason why it was put in, in the first place...

[Timmy the Doc]

Check out this video. The best angle on it is the bit that starts at 0:54 and there is no way you come even close to seeing daylight between the ball and the post. The thing that prevents this from conclusively proving that the technology made the wrong call is that the angle is not EXACTLY lined up with the posts. However, from the best available angle, it does look like NO GOAL to me (even after compensating for the fact that the angle isn't perfect).

http://www.smh.com.au/fifa-world-cup-2014/world-cup-match-report/world-cup-2014-france-thrash-honduras-as-history-made-20140616-zs8t0.html

And just to be clear, I do agree that it was much better for the decision to be made by goal line technology rather than the assistant referee, since the latter would have just been guessing anyway on such a close call that happened so quickly.

Goal at 0:51.

[Park Street Ranger]

Agreed. At 0:51 it is unambiguously over the line.