Since this is a sort of film related thing (very tenuously) I thought I'd chime in with my views on Goal Line technology in Football.
It's a thorny issue at the moment, especially with a referee earlier this week awarding a goal that wasn't even between the posts. A real shocker for him then. Thing is, I want to look at what happened next.
The Referee is told that the goal has gone in, he stops concentrating and signals the goal. In this case, the goalie pulls off a spectacularish save on the next shot. When he signals the goal, the ball is still in open play and the players are aghast to find a goal has been given.
We know the technology is there to see if the ball has gone in or not. That's not my issue - my point is, at what point should the referee stop play to look at video evidence? And if there's some sort of "ping" in his ear to tell him it's over then what if he's distracted? Or doesn;t hear it cos some overpaid fool is shouting at him?
Let's look at this week's example. If he stops play the instant the linesman gives the signal, then the attacking team lose the opportunity to take their shot while the ref checks if it was really a goal. If he blows his whistle he is stopping play at a crucial moment, just on the off-chance it's gone in.
So my question and issue with the introduction of goal line technology is not one of the technology involved, its one of "when is this decision supposed to take place?"
There is some talk of "hawkeye" system being used, which seems to be the favoured option, leading to the aforementioned "ping" in the ear. I'm not sure I like that option for previously stated reasons. A short noise is all to easy to miss, and then we're back where we started.
The one option absolutely out of the question is that of "retrospective action", such as the suggestion of replaying the match (which incidentally, Steve Coppell, coach of the benefitting team was happy with). For a start, there simply isn't time to replay matches. Secondly, it's the start of a slippery slope. Any team when a decision is overturned could claim it significantly changed how they played for the rest of a game (especially true with sendings off, like John Terry's overturned red card against Manchester City) and demand that the game be replayed. It just wouldn't work.
I doubt my regular readers will be much bothered by this, but there's my two cents worth, anyhow. I promise not to talk too much about sport in he future.
A
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Actually this is an interesting subject. The week before last in the NFL (That's gridiron or American football to those not in the know), a game was lost for exactly the same reason.
ReplyDeleteThe San Diego Chargers were playing at the Denver Broncoes. The game is, basically, lost for Denver. They have only a few seconds to score (6 points), and are 7 points behind. The quarterback steps back to throw - and the ball slips out of his hands. It lands on the ground, San Diego pick it up, they have possession. Game Over.
Except it isn't.
Referee Ed Hochuli blew his whistle when the ball came out, ruling it an incomplete pass. A video review showed that it should have been ruled a fumble. Instant replay rules, however, don't allow the opponent to gain possession in such situations.
In other words, the call on the field was made, the whistle was blown and the opposing team lose an opportunity to gain from it. In this case video evidence indicated that the call was wrong, but that cannot overrule this kind of ruling on the field (it's complicated in the NFL). Denver are given the ball back, they make the 6 point score and then (following NFL rules) have the opportunity to make one more play to get an additional two points. They go for the play, get the two points and beat San Diego by 1.
All because the referee blew the whistle and stopped the play.
Now the situations are not totally similar, but at least we do have the position where the referee made a choice to stop the game and it was the wrong choice. If he had allowed the play to continue, Denver would have lost the ball but could have then challenged the call in an effort to regain possession. I believe they would have lost, but stranger things have happened!
Weird call... I don't know the NFL game very well, but I take it from what you said that's an interpretive issue?
ReplyDeleteIf you didn;t see the "goal" I described, it was a full two feet to the right of the upright, nowhere even near the goal.
A real shocker!
But in a game like football, where the ball goes dead about 3% as often as in the American version, the issue of "when to call" is absolutely crucial, not "what to call".
In your example, silly as the call sounds (though slightly more forgiveable, since he was actually attempting a pass) the ball goes dead either way, right? This affords an opportunity for evidence to be seen that just doesn't happen in the English game.
I already said Video replays or "goal line technology" as the phrase is at the moment are technologically possible.
The problem is, even if the "done thing" becomes to wait until the ball is dead in order to check, what if the next time the ball goes dead is in the "scoring" team's goal?
This is for me the fundamental issue that needs addressing, and I am yet to hear much talking about this side of things.
What's your opinion on that?
A
P.S. Spurs actually won a match yesterday... I would take your umbrella out today, in case of Porcine Poop from the sky.
oh and as for "it's complicated in the NFL", it simply seems they have limited the enforcement of video technology, something I am in favour of anyway, since we'd end up with video replays shown to the ref for serious fouls when cards may be given, offside rulings, off the ball incidents etc etc... and this would fundamentally undermine the 90 minute structure and lead to the sort of stop-start-stop-start nonsense which limits my enjoyment of most of the American national pastimes (and Rugby League, for that matter, though less so).
ReplyDeleteThe other issue I failed to touch on is the matter of Referee's authority. Who's to say that on first viewing of a replay the referee still makes the wrong decision? Is the fourth official going to be allowed to overrule him?
It just has a lot of issues to be ironed out before it's workable in a practical, full game environment.
A
Oops.... mistake in my first reply, in the case where the Chargers got the ball the clock runs down, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteMy intended point was that "the games stops" either way, not that the ball goes dead, which has a rules implication.
A