Should Technology Be Introduced In Football?

[Charlie Reams]

Everyone knows it dude, seriously.

I am still not convinced. I've asked mates before and they *always* say it's when they touch the ball etc and *nobody* has ever mentioned point 2 to me. Whether they are keeping things simple for me I'm not quite sure.

The canonical phrase is "when the ball was kicked", so maybe you misunderstood.

[Kirk Bevins]

Probably, sounds like they're still waiting for you to grasp point one fully, which you don't seem to have done judging from your earlier posts. And no , I'm not being sarcastic here, it's just that you seem to think the whole concept is much more complicated than it actually is.

I asked two football fans about it tonight and they nailed point 1 straight away..took a bit of prompting for them to get point 2 and they didn't get point 3. So, as I predicted.

[craig]

Also, nobody has mentioned (unless I haven't read properly) that you have to be in the oppositions half for it to be offside. Can't believe nobody new that!

[Ryan Taylor]

Also, nobody has mentioned (unless I haven't read properly) that you have to be in the oppositions half for it to be offside. Can't believe nobody new that!

I don't know if you meant this as a joke or whether you were being serious?

[Michael Wallace]

I asked two football fans about it tonight and they nailed point 1 straight away..took a bit of prompting for them to get point 2 and they didn't get point 3. So, as I predicted.

Er, except you were saying people wouldn't know point 2, not point 3. And besides, I'd've thought most people would consider point 3 to be part of point 1 anyway.

[Kirk Bevins]

Er, except you were saying people wouldn't know point 2, not point 3. And besides, I'd've thought most people would consider point 3 to be part of point 1 anyway.

Yeah I agree about point 3 but they didn't know point 2 until prompted, which is what I said. Didn't you read?

[Charlie Reams]

Er, except you were saying people wouldn't know point 2, not point 3. And besides, I'd've thought most people would consider point 3 to be part of point 1 anyway.

Yeah I agree about point 3 but they didn't know point 2 until prompted, which is what I said. Didn't you read?

You said people wouldn't know it, which they evidently did, even if they couldn't bring it to mind immediately. In any case, two random blokes you asked aren't exactly a representative sample for C4C users. Also, Point 3 is a weird one to list because it would appear to be completely subsumed by the others.

[Kirk Bevins]

In any case, two random blokes you asked aren't exactly a representative sample for C4C users.

I asked 2 friends and seeing as I'd stated that I'd asked my friends before and they never mentioned point 2 I thought it was a reasonable thing to do to confirm my original statement.

[Charlie Reams]

You said people wouldn't know it, which they evidently did, even if they couldn't bring it to mind immediately.

[Andy Wilson]

Maybe those who claim to know about football who actually don't know all the rules are keeping quiet or pretend to know it just to make themselves feel good.

I didn't really want to interfere for fear of straying into an offside position. Slightly baffled by this though Kirk. By the second point, you mean, playing or touching the ball? Surely this is the most obvious reason one could be considered to be actively involved in play, or am I missing something here? Sometimes you'll see a player realise he is offside and deliberately pull up as there is another player in an onside position with a chance and he doesn't want the referee to stop play.

One last wee addition fyi, if the ball is played by an opposition player, you're not offside, even if you are!

[Charlie Reams]

One last wee addition fyi, if the ball is played by an opposition player, you're not offside, even if you are!

Yes, and as Craig said, you can't be offside in your own half. All of which suggests to me that Wikipedia has taken some liberties in paraphrasing the actual laws of the game, which would explain why people might not explain the rules in the same way.

[Kirk Bevins]

Maybe those who claim to know about football who actually don't know all the rules are keeping quiet or pretend to know it just to make themselves feel good.

I didn't really want to interfere for fear of straying into an offside position. Slightly baffled by this though Kirk. By the second point, you mean, playing or touching the ball? Surely this is the most obvious reason one could be considered to be actively involved in play, or am I missing something here? Sometimes you'll see a player realise he is offside and deliberately pull up as there is another player in an onside position with a chance and he doesn't want the referee to stop play.

One last wee addition fyi, if the ball is played by an opposition player, you're not offside, even if you are!

No Andy. Point 2 is point 2 that I copied from wikipedia to do with blocking the sight of another player etc.

[Jon Corby]

Point 2 is point 2 that I copied from wikipedia to do with blocking the sight of another player etc.

Most often seen when a player is directly in front of the goalkeeper, blocking his line of sight on a shot. I seriously doubt anyone who has watched any amount of football with interest will not know this.

Have you worked out yet Kirk why people can pack the penalty area on corners, and not be offside?

[Marc Meakin]

Point 2 is point 2 that I copied from wikipedia to do with blocking the sight of another player etc.

Most often seen when a player is directly in front of the goalkeeper, blocking his line of sight on a shot. I seriously doubt anyone who has watched any amount of football with interest will not know this.

Have you worked out yet Kirk why people can pack the penalty area on corners, and not be offside?

What Jon is alluding to is the exceptions to the rule.
A player is not offside if he receives the ball from a goalkick, throw in, or a corner.
Don't think this is mentioned in Wiki though.
Who would have thunk it, Wiki not being entirely accurate.

[Jon Corby]

Point 2 is point 2 that I copied from wikipedia to do with blocking the sight of another player etc.

Most often seen when a player is directly in front of the goalkeeper, blocking his line of sight on a shot. I seriously doubt anyone who has watched any amount of football with interest will not know this.

Have you worked out yet Kirk why people can pack the penalty area on corners, and not be offside?

What Jon is alluding to is the exceptions to the rule.
A player is not offside if he receives the ball from a goalkick, throw in, or a corner.
Don't think this is mentioned in Wiki though.
Who would have thunk it, Wiki not being entirely accurate.

Ah, but it's not necessary for corners to be specifically included as an exception though, is it?

Edit: Actually I suppose it is, strictly speaking. Scrub that.

[Michael Wallace]

Don't think this is mentioned in Wiki though.
Who would have thunk it, Wiki not being entirely accurate.

Did you read the page?

"Regardless of position, there is no offside offense if a player receives the ball directly from a goal kick, corner kick, or throw-in."

[Marc Meakin]

Don't think this is mentioned in Wiki though.
Who would have thunk it, Wiki not being entirely accurate.

Did you read the page?

"Regardless of position, there is no offside offense if a player receives the ball directly from a goal kick, corner kick, or throw-in."

Looks like I need to go to Specsavers (along with Mauricio Espinosa )

[Jon O'Neill]

And you can't be offside if the ball's played backwards.

[Jon Corby]

And you can't be offside if the ball's played backwards.

Or if you're behind the ball when it's played. Which is what I was getting at with corners. But then I realised that most people place corners around the arc, so actually you could be ahead of it. Maybe Kirk was right all along.

[Andy Wilson]

No Andy. Point 2 is point 2 that I copied from wikipedia to do with blocking the sight of another player etc.

Ah, sorry. I definitely need to read threads more carefully. You see, I interfered and ended up offside.

[Andy Wilson]

Why did the chicken cross the road? According to FIFA it didn't.

[Liam Tiernan]

Why did the chicken cross the road? According to FIFA it didn't.

Actually it did, but in crossing an unbroken white line in doing so, was declared to be a fowl.

[Gavin Chipper]

No, unless it's for EVERYTHING. And then I wouldn't want it because even video is inconclusive sometimes, and it would interrupt the flow too much. So basically no.

Haha wow, I'm the only "no". If by "technology" you mean "an amazing robo-ref that gets every decision correct", then I'm a yes. But you don't mean that, so I think you need to qualify exactly what you're talking about.

You could probably quite easily have some sort of sensor in the ball or something along those lines that triggers a noise in the ref's ear whenever the ball goes over any relevant line. So there would be no need for any delays with this system while someone has to check anything. If this can be done (and I imagine it can) I think it should be introduced. Offside and other things may be more complex, but to argue that it should be for everything or nothing is a bit like arguing that you shouldn't give any money to charity unless it will enable everyone to get out of poverty.

[Lesley Hines]

some sort of sensor in the ball or something along those lines that triggers a noise in the ref's ear

Can't see it working...

[David Roe]

And you can't be offside if the ball's played backwards.

Isn't there enough confusion on this subject without deliberate misinformation?

As for technology, they already do use it. Check the referee - he's got a walkie-talkie strapped to his face.

[David Roe]

I'm pretty sure it was Bill Shankly who said "If he is not interferring with play, he should be" As usual Atkinson was stealing ideas from better managers.

I thought it was Bill Nicholson. Possibly he didn't like wingers and was trying to cut out the tactic of getting to the goalline and crossing the ball.

Shankly's particular idiocy was the "football's not a matter of life or death" quote.

[Andy Wilson]

It would take a lot of pressure off the ref if he wasn't responsible for the things he wasn't sure about.

[Jon Corby]

No, unless it's for EVERYTHING. And then I wouldn't want it because even video is inconclusive sometimes, and it would interrupt the flow too much. So basically no.

Haha wow, I'm the only "no". If by "technology" you mean "an amazing robo-ref that gets every decision correct", then I'm a yes. But you don't mean that, so I think you need to qualify exactly what you're talking about.

You could probably quite easily have some sort of sensor in the ball or something along those lines that triggers a noise in the ref's ear whenever the ball goes over any relevant line. So there would be no need for any delays with this system while someone has to check anything. If this can be done (and I imagine it can) I think it should be introduced. Offside and other things may be more complex, but to argue that it should be for everything or nothing is a bit like arguing that you shouldn't give any money to charity unless it will enable everyone to get out of poverty.

My main point is - why bother - 99.99% of the time this call is made correctly anyway, and what's the point in knowing the ball has crossed the line when you've missed another infringement seconds earlier anyway. I'm in a weird arguing position here because it sounds odd but I know what I mean - the point is that this is such a minor point compared to all the other issues that I don't see why it gets any debate coverage at all. It's just so trivial.

[Liam Tiernan]

I'm pretty sure it was Bill Shankly who said "If he is not interferring with play, he should be" As usual Atkinson was stealing ideas from better managers.

I thought it was Bill Nicholson. Possibly he didn't like wingers and was trying to cut out the tactic of getting to the goalline and crossing the ball.

Shankly's particular idiocy was the "football's not a matter of life or death" quote.

It was definitely Shankly

[David Roe]

It was definitely Shankly

Wikipedia's hardly definitive.

[James Doohan]

I thought it was Bill Nicholson

Wikipedia's hardly definitive.

So what your saying is your thoughts are a more definitive resource than Wikipedia?

[Liam Tiernan]

It was definitely Shankly

Wikipedia's hardly definitive.

True, I suppose. Googling the phrase I found at least twenty instances of the phrase attributed to Shankly, two crediting Brian Clough, and one ( the Daily Mail, of all places) giving it to Nicholson. Even a Spurs fansite listing Nicholson quotations didn't have it.





PS: While searching I found this little gem:
Partick Thistle’s John Lambie after Colin McGlashan did not know who he was after suffering concussion
‘Tell him he's Pele and get him back on.’

[David Roe]

I thought it was Bill Nicholson

Wikipedia's hardly definitive.

So what your saying is your thoughts are a more definitive resource than Wikipedia?

What I'm saying is, I thought it was Nicholson, and the fact that an anonymous person on Wikipedia uses his unattributed source to say it's Shankley doesn't make any difference. Wikipedia might make me think I might be wrong, but on its own it doesn't change my opinion.

If it mattered, I might enquire further. But it doesn't really matter which of them said it, it's still a daft thing to say when analysed to the nth degree.

[Martin Bishop]

My main point is - why bother - 99.99% of the time this call is made correctly anyway, and what's the point in knowing the ball has crossed the line when you've missed another infringement seconds earlier anyway. I'm in a weird arguing position here because it sounds odd but I know what I mean - the point is that this is such a minor point compared to all the other issues that I don't see why it gets any debate coverage at all. It's just so trivial.

Surely whether or not the ball has gone into the goal is the most important decision a referee can make in a game of football. It's also the most objectively measurable. You can easily have two people watch the same incident and have different opinions on whether something is a foul. With offside, you can have different interpretations of interfering with play, although such instances are comparatively rare. With hawkeye you can easily tell whether a ball has crossed the line within seconds of the incident and without the need for play to stop. It makes sense to introduce that.

While we're at it with rule changes, I think that if a ball is stopped from crossing the goal line by a hand, that shouldn't be a penalty. That should be a goal.

EDIT: Before someone calls me up on this, I mean stopped by the hand of an outfield player.

[Michael Wallace]

While we're at it with rule changes, I think that if a ball is stopped from crossing the goal line by a hand, that shouldn't be a penalty. That should be a goal.

What if the ball is moving really slowly? Does it only count if the hand is on the goal-line? What if it's 1cm in front, 1 inch?

[Martin Bishop]

While we're at it with rule changes, I think that if a ball is stopped from crossing the goal line by a hand, that shouldn't be a penalty. That should be a goal.

What if the ball is moving really slowly? Does it only count if the hand is on the goal-line? What if it's 1cm in front, 1 inch?

I don't think this should be too hard to police. If there is another defender directly between the ball and the goal, or one who has time to get round and cover, then that's just a penalty.

[Jon Corby]

Surely whether or not the ball has gone into the goal is the most important decision a referee can make in a game of football.

Well yes and no, like I've said (possibly in another thread, it's getting confusing now) who gives a fuck if you super accurately measure that the ball has gone 1mm over the line, if you've missed the fact that the striker was actually offside, or controlled using his hand. Sure it's kinda important, but it's already done accurately enough. It's really not a problem compared to other stuff.

[Kirk Bevins]

While we're at it with rule changes, I think that if a ball is stopped from crossing the goal line by a hand, that shouldn't be a penalty. That should be a goal.

Agreed and then that will be a serious message to footballers to avoid using their hands to stop goals. If this was a rule and Suarez knew it, he would have had to use his head or something but seeing as he used his hands his team lose. That's a better punishment. The only objectivity is if it's an accidental handball.

[Ryan Taylor]

While we're at it with rule changes, I think that if a ball is stopped from crossing the goal line by a hand, that shouldn't be a penalty. That should be a goal.

Agreed and then that will be a serious message to footballers to avoid using their hands to stop goals. If this was a rule and Suarez knew it, he would have had to use his head or something but seeing as he used his hands his team lose. That's a better punishment. The only objectivity is if it's an accidental handball.

You're really getting the hang of this now Kirk.

[Kirk Bevins]

You're really getting the hang of this now Kirk.

Is this a piss take?

[Ryan Taylor]

You're really getting the hang of this now Kirk.

Is this a piss take?

No, a compliment.

[Liam Tiernan]

You're really getting the hang of this now Kirk.

Is this a piss take?

No, a compliment.

That's how I read it too. Really meant the like for Kirks comment, rather than Ryans reply. Sorted out now.

[Jon Corby]

While we're at it with rule changes, I think that if a ball is stopped from crossing the goal line by a hand, that shouldn't be a penalty. That should be a goal.

Agreed and then that will be a serious message to footballers to avoid using their hands to stop goals. If this was a rule and Suarez knew it, he would have had to use his head or something but seeing as he used his hands his team lose. That's a better punishment. The only objectivity is if it's an accidental handball.

...or if you're not sure if the ball was going in anyway.

[Gavin Chipper]

While we're at it with rule changes, I think that if a ball is stopped from crossing the goal line by a hand, that shouldn't be a penalty. That should be a goal.

Agreed and then that will be a serious message to footballers to avoid using their hands to stop goals. If this was a rule and Suarez knew it, he would have had to use his head or something but seeing as he used his hands his team lose. That's a better punishment. The only objectivity is if it's an accidental handball.

Would this be from any distance? Like the goalie coming out a bit too far and handling the ball just outside the area?

[Kirk Bevins]

Would this be from any distance? Like the goalie coming out a bit too far and handling the ball just outside the area?

If he's handling the ball just outside the area, then it isn't a shot towards the goal (as judged by the referee) so is a different scenario. Handballs should be a card (don't know what colour) unless it's a purposeful handball to immediately stop a goal (this definition is at the referee's discretion). One might argue that it's bad to introduce a rule that involves referee's discretion but isn't that what most of football is at the moment, offsides etc...linesman/referee's decision/discretion.

[David Williams]

I think that every time there is an incident in a game that I happen to have watched that would have been improved by changing the rules, the rules should be changed. Everything would be fine then.

[Kirk Bevins]

I think that every time there is an incident in a game that I happen to have watched that would have been improved by changing the rules, the rules should be changed. Everything would be fine then.

If it makes the game fairer, then yes. It's the same with life - if you can think of something that will improve your company's efficiency then do it.

[David Williams]

I think that every time there is an incident in a game that I happen to have watched that would have been improved by changing the rules, the rules should be changed. Everything would be fine then.

If it makes the game fairer, then yes. It's the same with life - if you can think of something that will improve your company's efficiency then do it.

So I'm just nodding the ball into the empty net. You can punch the ball, but that would still be a goal. Or you can punch me in the face, which is only a penalty. That's fairer? You don't improve anything by knee jerk reactions to everything that happens.

[Charlie Reams]

if you can think of something that will improve your company's efficiency then do it.

In your extensive experience of such.

[Kirk Bevins]

You can punch the ball, but that would still be a goal. Or you can punch me in the face, which is only a penalty. That's fairer? You don't improve anything by knee jerk reactions to everything that happens.

Punching the ball away from the goal. Punishment: Award the goal and red card for the player.
Punching someone in the face. Punishment: As it was before - red card for the player.

I don't see your problem.

[Simon Myers]

So I'm just nodding the ball into the empty net. You can punch the ball, but that would still be a goal. Or you can punch me in the face, which is only a penalty. That's fairer? You don't improve anything by knee jerk reactions to everything that happens.

Punching the ball away from the goal. Punishment: Award the goal and red card for the player.
Punching someone in the face. Punishment: As it was before - red card for the player.

I don't see your problem.

What I think he means is this: if a defender knows that punching the ball would result in a goal and a red card, why not just punch the striker in the face (before or while he's attempting to head the ball), resulting in the lesser punishment of a penalty and a red card, despite it being a worse foul. Unintended consequences and all that.

[Jon Corby]

If it makes the game fairer, then yes. It's the same with life - if you can think of something that will improve your company's efficiency then do it.

...until it then transpires that in "fixing" this one tiny little problem you actually caused several new ones...

[Kirk Bevins]

...until it then transpires that in "fixing" this one tiny little problem you actually caused several new ones...

Well obviously, yes. Before making any rule changes it has to be discussed and you have to be careful with the words used and see if there's any flaws/loopholes etc, or indeed see if it causes other new problems. Nobody said it was going to happen overnight.

[Martin Bishop]

So I'm just nodding the ball into the empty net. You can punch the ball, but that would still be a goal. Or you can punch me in the face, which is only a penalty. That's fairer? You don't improve anything by knee jerk reactions to everything that happens.

If you foul a player before they've taken a shot, then you can't be certain that the shot would have been on target.

If you stop a ball with your hand as it flies towards goal, you can be certain that it would have otherwise gone into the goal.

You don't improve anything by knee jerk reactions to everything that happens.

Who said I was behaving knee-jerkedly to everything? This is one knee-jerk reaction. That doesn't make me wrong.

[Michael Wallace]

If you stop a ball with your hand as it flies towards goal, you can be certain that it would have otherwise gone into the goal.

100% certainty!

[JimBentley]

If you stop a ball with your hand as it flies towards goal, you can be certain that it would have otherwise gone into the goal.

100% certainty!

That's just it. There can never be 100% certainty, as there's always the possibility that a giant frozen icicle of piss could fall from the sky and impale the ball as it flew towards the goal. Or maybe a meteorite. Or maybe a giant frozen icicle of piss could fall from the sky and impale the ref or one of the players, in which case the match would probably be abandoned and everyone would go home disappointed and traumatised, so it wouldn't matter anyway. Nothing's certain.

[Gavin Chipper]

Would this be from any distance? Like the goalie coming out a bit too far and handling the ball just outside the area?

If he's handling the ball just outside the area, then it isn't a shot towards the goal (as judged by the referee) so is a different scenario.

Why can't a shot twoards the goal be handled outside the area by the keeper?

[Jon Corby]

So just to clarify, if the referee judges something to have been a certain goal without the handball he should give the goal (plus anything else that would make the game "fairer") and we'll accept his decision, but we don't trust the referee's judgement at all so we want technology. Am I following this correctly?

[Michael Wallace]

So just to clarify, if the referee judges something to have been a certain goal without the handball he should give the goal (plus anything else that would make the game "fairer") and we'll accept his decision, but we don't trust the referee's judgement at all so we want technology. Am I following this correctly?

You forgot the bit about how we solve the problem of a darts player doing a really smelly fart to put off his opponent.

[John Bosley]

Looks like technology is coming eventually...........
It works OK in cricket, where the umpire askes the third umpire to look at all the camera images - and hey presto, its yes or no.