SUN, 8:30AM ET
LIV2
SOU1
SUN, 11AM ET
NEW0
MCFC2
MON, 3PM ET
BUR1
CHE3
TUES, 2:45PM ET
BES0
ARS0
THU, 1PM ET
TRI1
THFC2
SAT, 7:45AM ET
AST
NEW

Goal-line Technology May Be in the Premier League Next Season

lampard goal only explanation Goal line Technology May Be in the Premier League Next Season

FIFA President Sepp Blatter has been defiant towards introducing goal-line technology but has softened up on the issue since FIFA’s embarrassment in last summer’s World Cup.  The need for goal-line technology was made evident to millions when Frank Lampard was denied a goal that clearly crossed over the line in the knockout round between England and Germany.  Ironically, nine months later Lampard was then awarded a goal when Tottenham goalkeeper Heurelho Gomez fumbled and then allowed the ball to creep past him. Gomez reached back and with his arm fully extended stopped the ball from crossing the line by the narrowest of margins. However, as we know, it was incorrectly ruled a goal for Chelsea.

In the wake of corruption and bribery accusations surrounding the 2022 World Cup bid, Blatter concedes, “We will have on the next international board at the beginning of March next year a final decision on goal-line technology,” Blatter told reporters at a news conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, ahead of Saturday’s World Cup qualifying draw.  “If it will prove to be accurate and to be affordable, then it is possible the international board will decide goal-line technology shall be introduced for the World Cup 2014.”  For the technology to be approved, it must be proven that an accurate result can be reported to the main referee within one second of the ball crossing the line.

With that said, the Premier League could see goal-line technology introduced in the 2012-2013 season according to chief executive Richard Scudamore.  “The technology is available, it is the fairness that is important and the Premier League would introduce it tomorrow if it could. Now FIFA is constructively engaged we are hopeful the 2012-13 season is a realistic aim.”

FIFA is finally entertaining the idea of bringing football out of the 19th century. That’s right, technology that other sports around the globe have used for decades is now seriously being considered. So do you think this will actually happen in time for the 2012-13 season, or do you think it’s FIFA creating a smokescreen to make us believe that they support progress but will rule out the technology next March? Plus, do you want it to happen? Share your opinions below.

This entry was posted in General, Leagues: EPL. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Goal-line Technology May Be in the Premier League Next Season

  1. Phenoum says:

    I think it will happen – though I also think FIFA will line their pockets with $ from suppliers and overpay for a very simple technology.

    Here’s to hoping the “superclubs” overthrow FIFA in the next year or two.

  2. Peter says:

    As an England and Tottenham fan, I should be the loudest voice for goal line technology.

    However, I am not. Against it 100%. After Lampard’s goal was not called, I straight away said “Bad call, but no way should you bring goal line technology in”

    It is a slippery slope IMHO. What happens if a Thierry Henry type goal (vs Ireland) is a dubious call on whether it crossed the line. They review the video, yes it did cross the line. Ok- goal. BUT WAIT… He clearly hand balled that- so how can it be a goal?? If this happens, then they will start the calls for extending reviews… And that will be the end of football as we know it.

    Dont get me wrong- I am a fan for increased technology where it will not interrupt the game. In cricket they use it and I am a fan for it being used more. Why? There is a starting point, there is an ending point. Football is so free flowing that there is no starting point and ending point to a play. You’d essentially be making a call that could have been affected by an on field call 30 mins ago.

    NO to goal line technology.

    • Nelson says:

      Actually, FIFA will not approve any technology that exceeds one second to the referee. If that is true, then I cannot see the free-flowing game changing. In fact it may allow the ref to respond even quicker when it IS a close call. Even if it did take a few extra seconds to report, I dont see it changing the game at all, as 99% of goals are obvious to the ref.

      • Nelson says:

        Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t believe there will be any “video to review” in this technology.

        • Peter says:

          My problem with the technology introduction is not that it will be video replay (i believe they are talking about chip in ball technology) but rather, that it will then lead to more calls for technology. Once you start, how do you stop?

          • Dave C says:

            Yeah I kind of agree with Peter in some ways. I wish there was some practical way to use technology to ensure the refs reach the right decisions (and unlike Peter, I’m not averse to the idea of video replays for all kinds of events within a game), but I don’t think this is the way to do it.

            Why are we focusing on getting goal-line decisions right, but not trying to get all other referee’s calls correct (such as fouls, offsides, handballs etc). Like Peter said – if a Thierry Henry-style handball event led to a ball crossing the line, why shouldl we use technology to determine whether the ball crossed the line, but not to spot that there was a handball in the build up?

            Likewise, if a striker is offside, but wrongly ruled to be onside, and he then goes on to kick the ball over the line, but the ref mistakenly thinks that it is not across the line, has justice really been served by proving that the goal should stand? Surely justice would be better served by using technology to detect that the player was offside in the first place, and thus the chance should never have arisen?

            Personally I think if technology should be used, it should have the potential to be used on ALL decisions, not just goal-line disputes, since ALL decisions can decide the outcome of the game.

          • Peter says:

            OOOOOO. You went there. The “technology should be used on all decisions”

            Here is why- because football is meant to be as similar in Wembley as it is to the village green. And as similar in the village green to a rural pickup game in Burundi. Ie- ball, goals, set of rules, a way of distinguishing teams. These do change a bit (goal size/type of ball/offside yes or no). But this is why the game is the most popular sport in the world.

            The 2006 World Cup had 26 Billion cumulative viewers. That means, everyone in the world on average watched 4 games!!! Football is by far the most popular sport and if we start introducing more and more technology is becomes more of an “elitist” sport and distances itself from the average Joe in the middle of nowhere.

            Go anywhere in the world with a football and you make instant friends.

            Once again, no to video technology. I’ll compromise to chip in ball technology but that is the most extreme tha

          • Peter says:

            *** I’ll compromise to chip in ball technology but that is the most extreme that I would be prepared to see FIFA go

          • Dave C says:

            I think FIFA’s goal has never been to make football at the highest levels similar in it’s basic requirements to games as lowly as casual pick-up games. I think you’re confusing their intention slightly – they want football at the highest levels to be as similar as possible in it’s basic requirements to all officially sanctioned games – i.e. anything regulated by a local FA, played under official FIFA rules, with referees, proper goal posts, etc (in such games, the off-side law is never waived, the goals/field/balls are always official size, etc etc).

            FIFA obviously has no jurisdiction as to how pick-up games are played. And that’s why to be honest, I don’t buy this argument that soccer is popular because at the highest level, it is inherently the same as at the lowest levels, because it’s inherently not true. Even in local FA-sanctioned games, I’ve played on fields covered in sheep poop, fields where thick mud would cling to your boots like clay, matches where volunteer dads or unused substitutes had to act as linesmen, etc etc i.e. situations that are nothing like the pro-level. Yet still the game remains popular.

            And when you get talking about pick-up games: people play in all imaginable situations, that are nothing like the pro-level: jumpers for goal posts, imaginary touch lines, etc etc. Pro-level football is already a million miles away from such games, and I don’t see how video/goal-line technology will be the straw that broke the camel’s back in that respect.

            And if you’re willing to compromise by allowing goal-line tech, how is that different to allowing video reviews, etc? In either case, you’re making the game at the highest levels fundamentally different to the lower levels.

  3. Dave C says:

    Here’s an interesting question for you all (that I don’t know the answer to):

    Does anyone have a figure for the average length of time between any stoppages in football? Or what is the longest time that has ever passed between any two stoppages?

    I was thinking if there could ever be a system of having video reviews at the next available stoppage, this would be a key factor (i.e. reviewing action from a few seconds ago is OK, but obviously reviewing action from 10 minutes ago, and “re-winding” the game clock back to that point, is effectively ridiculous).

  4. Nelson says:

    I think we should address the real issue: “how can we help refs get more plays called correctly without delays from video replay.”

    The only instance where this can be practically used is in goal line technology (but let me know if there are others). Sure, there are many other areas of the game that refs need more help with (like calling off sides or handballs) but I if we believe video replay has no place in football, then there is nothing we can do about those bad calls.

    However we can do something about goal line calls quite easily. If goal line technology does NOT interfere with the flow of the game, should it be considered? So far the only argument I’ve heard is, “if you give an inch to technology then be prepared to give a yard”.

  5. F1Mikal says:

    Funny thing is that the company Hawkeye offered to FIFA to install their system for FREE. Yes free and FIFA turned them down. Why?
    Because FIFA couldn’t figure out how they would get money.

    Doesn’t matter if it is ‘good for the game’.
    It is all about the money.
    Ask Andrew Jennings.

    my 2p for Friday.

  6. Anthony says:

    Money is on the line, people’s happiness is on the line, everything should be up for review, I don’t care how long it takes, getting the calls right is the most important thing. We stop matches for injuries, nobody complains, we should be able to stop matches to make sure the calls are right. Also, how many bad calls can be made, with all the cameras, until football loses all credibility and people stop watching?

    • Peter says:

      Football will never lose interest! In fact, it keeps on gaining interest year in year out. It is THE most watched sport, and THE most played sport in the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>