Page 3 of 4
Posted:
Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:16 pmby stu the red
The games not about opinions, its about blind facts.
You can't have a "better opinion" than someone. Maybe a more informed one, but not better.
If it was all about opinions the tops teams wouldn't always finish top. Lets face it, you put Arsenal against a sunday league side, they'd probably be 20 up by half time, is that down to an opinion of a fact that arsenal have better players?
Posted:
Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:30 pmby zarababe
... Chill pill Stu 
Facts are those that often can not be dispelled .. but football is most definately full of opinions ..
It is my opinion that ... Maradonna is the greatest player in the world.. others will say Pele.. and so the debate rages...
It is a fact that Spurs.. scored and the ref did not give it...
The argument about the use of technology .. is raging on the views and opinions of supporters.. but informed by some appauling refereeing decisions based on facts that can not be disputed (the ball was over the line , a handball occured, the foul was inside and not outside the box etc etc )
Some opinions are informed, some are made through ignornace, blind faith, hangers-on etc...
.. and so this is a forum of facts, opinions and laffs and anger... but that is my opinion.. 
Posted:
Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:29 pmby zarababe
.. of for goodness sake.. are we now gonna rage on about what is a fact and what is an opinion... 
I have said that some issues in the game are about opinions.. blind ones.. informed ones etc.. and yes others are factual...
.. .. of course SG is better than a sunday league footballer... that is a fact.. but then u are not exactly comparing like for like now are you ?
.. opinions will ultimately shape the decisions sometimes made.. it was the refs opinion, based on his view of the incident, that the ball did not cross the line... Now if he could have consulted a replay of the incident.. then .. it's a fact the ball crossed the line...
I was merely concurring that the tecnological debate is about opinions.. as are so many things .. etc etc ..
Posted:
Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:39 pmby stu the red
Part of the game, always has been and always should be.
I'm sick to death of all this change nonense. The idiots at the top have already devalued the Uefa cup (probably the hardest trophy to win before all this stupid ****** change was brought in) and scrapped the cup winners cup.
The cup winners cup should be brought back, the onlly teams ALLOWED in the champions league should be the champions and compitition winners. There should be no video refs either.
The only "change" for referees i wouldn't be against is the 4th official, who in truth does ****** all anyways should look after the time keeping, 20 seconds for a goal, 20-30 seconds for a subsitution and any time wasting.
No how no way, should any other stupid changes be made. I'm sick of the "debate". If you love something you love it for what it is. I love football and all its imperfections. You either love it, or you dont.
Posted:
Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:12 pmby zarababe
... I understand where ure coming from.. and up until recenlty I wud have been dead against the use of replays etc.. for the reasons u stipulate... but some decisons are scandalous.. and while they add to the debate .. such errors can be the difference between surviving in the league and dropping down a division..
..whilst it's always been the way... we are now technologically able to prevent such errors.. I say a pilot is worth a go.. and shud be looked in to.. if games like Cricket can move with the times to enhance their sport.. then football shud at the least explore this ..
Posted:
Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:47 pmby JBG
Every now and again football needs a slight twinging of the rules. The game today is radically different now then a 100 years ago, with the introduction of nets, cards, huge changes in off side rules etc.
Change should only come when its desperately needed though, such as the change in the back pass rule after the 1986 and 1990 World Cups when it was getting clear that the sport was in danger from negative play.
My own opinion is that the limited use of technology as an aid to the referee should be looked at, in the same way as technology has aided the development of the game since its inception, be it the change in manufacture of balls and kit or satelite tv allowing people in, say, Africa, watch their team play at a World Cup in Europe.
Posted:
Sun Jan 09, 2005 11:17 pmby Tobin*LFC*
stu y dnt u jus keep off my back alright god i aint done anything 2 u hav i 4f**k sake
Posted:
Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:13 amby Santa
For and against video referreeing...(my POV)
Before the introduction of technology and "Cyclops", we often see players questioning line calls at tennis matches (it still exists but not as frequent as before)...remember the antics from Connors and McEnroe? That was tennis at its prime and made my day basking in the sushine at Wimbledon more enjoyable. Nowadays, tennis matches can be a bit boring in a sense, and I do miss those line call arguments. 
Back to football...today, football is no longer just a simple game you and me grew up with. It is a multi-billion £ business (from the shareholders down to those who run the clubs to those of us who hand over our money at William Hill or Coral), and big money could be won or loss with one incompetent decision by the referee. And with inconsistent and incompetent refereeing standard as witness over the past years, it is inevitable that (some form of) technology being introduced to take out some of those uncertainties. Misjudgement, human errors, incompetent or just plain bias on the part of the referees should not interfere with the results of a football match. Tactic, luck, team work and skills should not be compromised by the men wearing black (or green) who will try hard to raise their own profile.
Two side of arguments really but I am FOR the introduction of technology into the game...
BTW. stu I agree with you. UEFA ƒcuked up big time opening the CL to teams not winning their respective league, and thus downgraded the prestige of UEFA cup but like I said above, football is a billion £ business and decisions are made from purely the financial point of view. Sad really...
Posted:
Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:22 amby supersub
stu_the_red wrote:I'm sick to death of all this change nonense. The idiots at the top have already devalued the Uefa cup (probably the hardest trophy to win before all this stupid ****** change was brought in) and scrapped the cup winners cup.
The cup winners cup should be brought back, the onlly teams ALLOWED in the champions league should be the champions and compitition winners. There should be no video refs either.
Agree with all these sentiments ...posted a thread about this back in the days of black and white telly and when we all wore caps and shouted "hoorah"! when we scored.
It's not champions league ..it's also rans plus the champions of a few leagues.
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:19 pmby crazyhorse
I am not totally against the introduction of this technology, but refereeing mistakes are something that give the game a large amount of its passion. Having said that some sort of gizmo that tells you whether or not the ball is in the goal or not would work but its use must be limited.
They have the third umpire in cricket - and now it is used constantly as the umpires have started relying on it. Football is a game that relies on flow and exitement - we dont need stoppages which will only make things boring.
Posted:
Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:09 pmby Bammo
Goal-line technology should be introduced when it's proven consistently accurate. As for other video replays, if it is to be used during matches then it has to be sparingly. Comparisons to other sports don't hold up unless those sports have a similar style to football. American sports tend to be very stop-start. They have frequent and natural breaks to have the replays in.
Think about how much debate penalty decisions create in football. Even hours after games, having seen replays from numerous angles 100 times, pundits can't always agree. What happens if there are a few incidents per game? Are fans expected to wait 5 mins+ (like in the rugby world cup) for a decision to come back?
It's not practical to do that in-game. What should be done is increased power given to the video-panel. They should have the power to overturn decisions and punish divers/cheats.
Posted:
Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:30 pmby Sabre
Bammo wrote:Goal-line technology should be introduced when it's proven consistently accurate. As for other video replays, if it is to be used during matches then it has to be sparingly. Comparisons to other sports don't hold up unless those sports have a similar style to football. American sports tend to be very stop-start. They have frequent and natural breaks to have the replays in.
Think about how much debate penalty decisions create in football. Even hours after games, having seen replays from numerous angles 100 times, pundits can't always agree. What happens if there are a few incidents per game? Are fans expected to wait 5 mins+ (like in the rugby world cup) for a decision to come back?
It's not practical to do that in-game. What should be done is increased power given to the video-panel. They should have the power to overturn decisions and punish divers/cheats.
Good post.
For me the key notion is in your first sentence "consistently accurate". In the goal-line technology I think the accuracy it's reasonable in order to introduce it.
But I'm not sure technology can help always when it comes to decissions like conceding a penalty, and even in the off side situations, more often than not we need to watch the replay slowly and three times and it's hard to tell, you'd almost need photo finish like in the horse races and track and field races. Plus, the best perspective for an off side is the one which is in line with the last defence, a camera view might lead to errors for optical reasons.
In the boxes, it must be mentioned that a contact in the area doesn't mean it's a penalty. And cameras can't measure whether a striker is falling due to the strength applied by the defender or due to the strenght of it's own muscles (diving).
Then you have those situations in which a cheeky Spaniard striker does a small dribble and then drags his foot seeking to contact the defender deliberately. The contact exists, the trip aswell, but it's been forced, is that a penalty?
Even with cameras we'd have hot and not conclussive discussions in many games, and introducing it in the middle of the game would be a bit of madness.
Posted:
Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:37 pmby skatesy
Sabre wrote:Bammo wrote:Goal-line technology should be introduced when it's proven consistently accurate. As for other video replays, if it is to be used during matches then it has to be sparingly. Comparisons to other sports don't hold up unless those sports have a similar style to football. American sports tend to be very stop-start. They have frequent and natural breaks to have the replays in.
Think about how much debate penalty decisions create in football. Even hours after games, having seen replays from numerous angles 100 times, pundits can't always agree. What happens if there are a few incidents per game? Are fans expected to wait 5 mins+ (like in the rugby world cup) for a decision to come back?
It's not practical to do that in-game. What should be done is increased power given to the video-panel. They should have the power to overturn decisions and punish divers/cheats.
Good post.
For me the key notion is in your first sentence "consistently accurate". In the goal-line technology I think the accuracy it's reasonable in order to introduce it.
But I'm not sure technology can help always when it comes to decissions like conceding a penalty, and even in the off side situations, more often than not we need to watch the replay slowly and three times and it's hard to tell, you'd almost need photo finish like in the horse races and track and field races. Plus, the best perspective for an off side is the one which is in line with the last defence, a camera view might lead to errors for optical reasons.
In the boxes, it must be mentioned that a contact in the area doesn't mean it's a penalty. And cameras can't measure whether a striker is falling due to the strength applied by the defender or due to the strenght of it's own muscles (diving).
Then you have those situations in which a cheeky Spaniard striker does a small dribble and then drags his foot seeking to contact the defender deliberately. The contact exists, the trip aswell, but it's been forced, is that a penalty?
Even with cameras we'd have hot and not conclussive discussions in many games, and introducing it in the middle of the game would be a bit of madness.
Absolutely, even if technology was introduced that does not suffice to say that all the problems would be solved. Video technology should not be looked at as decider, yet a tool to be used to make a decision. Often video technology may not help to make a decision, however there are numerous cases when it would.
Point is, officials are making mistakes and they need some assistance. Video technology would provide this assistance.
Re: Why we should be above man united - + VIDEO TECHNOLOGY D
Posted:
Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:03 pmby supersub
Goaline technology has been introduced this season and has only been used on a few occasions , as far as I'm aware.....has members opinions changed over the last 9 years since this debate was started back in the day
Re: Why we should be above man united - + VIDEO TECHNOLOGY D
Posted:
Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:32 pmby laza
As long as it stick with just goal line decisions I don't mind so much.
Football isn't a game which I don't think really needs the stop start of waiting for a video decision.
Besides as other sports have shown such as Rugby or cricket, video technology hasn't stopped the controversial decisions its just changed what fans argue about now