Someone who always seems to have something to say about the referee is Fulham manager Chris Coleman.
He believes thay the move towards using technology in football will eventually help prevent decisions going in favour of bigger clubs.
Football's rulemakers have given the Premier League the green light to push ahead with experiments in goalline technology, and a Hawk-Eye system is set to be installed in Fulham's academy.
Coleman is among the managers in favour of referees being given a helping hand, and he hopes there will eventually be no doubt about debatable decisions in the penalty box.
'I can understand the big clubs not wanting it,' said Coleman. 'When you go to their backyard and are looking for that penalty in their box or whatever, it takes a brave man to make that decision in front of 40-50,000 people, even 75,000.
'You look down the years when smaller teams went to the big clubs and how many penalties they get or controversial goals given or taken away from them. It's hard for the officials and when it's 50-50 you rarely get them.'
Referees' chief Keith Hackett and Premier League general secretary Mike Foster met with the International Football Association Board (IFAB) in Manchester on Saturday to present the Hawk-Eye system.
The proposal involves a camera taking 600 frames a second on the goalline which is analysed by computer and sends an immediate signal to the referee's headset or a device on his wrist, so there appears to be some way to go before there is technology on offsides or penalty decisions.
Coleman, however, welcomes the move towards technology.
He added on BBC Radio Five Live's Sportsweek: 'Officials need more help, it's not easy to swallow when you get a bad decision against you, particularly if it results in a goal given against you or taken away.
'We're the only sport which doesn't have visual analysis, it would take 60 seconds maximum for the big decisions. In a game you rarely get more than three big decisions so I can't understands why we don't have it.'
Former Premiership referee Graham Barber believes officials would embrace technology.
He said: 'Officials aren't arrogant enough to say 'we don't need any help', they just want to go home knowing they've got 100% of the decisions right. If they have assistance to help them I'm sure they'll be happy.'
Taken from: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=412313&cc=5739
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Monday, 5 March 2007
Green Light For Goaline Technology
THE USE of technology to help rule on whether a ball has crossed the goalline moved a step closer yesterday when the International Football Association Board, the game’s lawmakers, agreed that technical research should be pursued with a view to incorporating suitable devices into the game’s rules .
The FA chief executive Brian Barwick, who hosted the IFAB meeting in Manchester, said: “We all believe goalline technology is the right way forward, and there is a general consensus on that.”
Following experiments with different detection systems in Italy’s Serie A and at Fifa junior tournaments, enthusiasm for a system that will rule on goalline controversies has grown. Television camerawork has become so sophisticated that the difficulties facing referees and their assistants in judging goalline decisions is emphasised in one league or another across the globe almost every week.
Earlier this year, Manchester United were involved in their second high-profile controversy in as many seasons, when a header from Nemanja Vidic was ruled out by the assistant referee during the FA Cup tie against Portsmouth.
Television footage showed the ball at least half a metre over the line before it was cleared by Pedro Mendes. Mendes himself “scored” a goal against United for Tottenham at Old Trafford in 2005 that Roy Carroll “saved” from well behind the line. The officials found in the United keeper’s favour only to be proved wrong by video replays.
Most famously, there is the case of 1966, when on the way to a hat-trick in the World Cup final, Geoff Hurst struck the crossbar and the ball bounced down on the goalline. The goal was, of course, given to England.
The IFAB have laid down strict guidelines for companies developing the equipment to monitor goalline activity.
Yesterday they set the conditions any technology must meet to gain their and Fifa’s eventual approval. They will insist that any system is foolproof; that the technology may only be concerned with goalline decisions; that the ‘goal’ or ‘no-goal’ signal to the referee has to be instant, so as to prevent disruption of the flow of the game; that the signal would be communicated solely to the match officials.
The IFAB do not want to follow the path of television umpiring decisions in cricket, which have become their own dramatic cliff-hangers. Football, the thinking, goes, is a sport with a different pace, and they do not want it pausing for second opinions.
Aspects of the technology, though, may borrow from other sports. Difficult line decisions in horse-racing and athletics are assisted by technology, and the developers of the HawkEye equipment used in cricket and tennis have worked with the English Premiership on a system for goalline decisions in football.
German engineers have also developed technology which uses a microchip inside the ball to detect whether or not it has crossed the line.
The FA chief executive Brian Barwick, who hosted the IFAB meeting in Manchester, said: “We all believe goalline technology is the right way forward, and there is a general consensus on that.”
Following experiments with different detection systems in Italy’s Serie A and at Fifa junior tournaments, enthusiasm for a system that will rule on goalline controversies has grown. Television camerawork has become so sophisticated that the difficulties facing referees and their assistants in judging goalline decisions is emphasised in one league or another across the globe almost every week.
Earlier this year, Manchester United were involved in their second high-profile controversy in as many seasons, when a header from Nemanja Vidic was ruled out by the assistant referee during the FA Cup tie against Portsmouth.
Television footage showed the ball at least half a metre over the line before it was cleared by Pedro Mendes. Mendes himself “scored” a goal against United for Tottenham at Old Trafford in 2005 that Roy Carroll “saved” from well behind the line. The officials found in the United keeper’s favour only to be proved wrong by video replays.
Most famously, there is the case of 1966, when on the way to a hat-trick in the World Cup final, Geoff Hurst struck the crossbar and the ball bounced down on the goalline. The goal was, of course, given to England.
The IFAB have laid down strict guidelines for companies developing the equipment to monitor goalline activity.
Yesterday they set the conditions any technology must meet to gain their and Fifa’s eventual approval. They will insist that any system is foolproof; that the technology may only be concerned with goalline decisions; that the ‘goal’ or ‘no-goal’ signal to the referee has to be instant, so as to prevent disruption of the flow of the game; that the signal would be communicated solely to the match officials.
The IFAB do not want to follow the path of television umpiring decisions in cricket, which have become their own dramatic cliff-hangers. Football, the thinking, goes, is a sport with a different pace, and they do not want it pausing for second opinions.
Aspects of the technology, though, may borrow from other sports. Difficult line decisions in horse-racing and athletics are assisted by technology, and the developers of the HawkEye equipment used in cricket and tennis have worked with the English Premiership on a system for goalline decisions in football.
German engineers have also developed technology which uses a microchip inside the ball to detect whether or not it has crossed the line.
Friday, 2 March 2007
The Premier League WILL back video technolgy at tomorrow's board meeting
Premier League chiefs will urge the sport's rule-makers this week to consider using video technology pioneered by Hawk-Eye to end uncertainty over goal-line decisions.
Hawk-Eye systems are used to judge dubious line calls in tennis, and also on television coverage of international cricket.
Referees' chief Keith Hackett and Premier League general secretary Mike Foster will present proposals to the International FA Board meeting in Manchester on Saturday.
Hackett's video presentation will include the Manchester United v Tottenham two seasons ago when goalkeeper Roy Carroll clearly spilled a long-range shot from then-Spurs midfielder Pedro Mendes over the line but a goal was not given.
Hackett said: 'We are working with Hawk-Eye in order to seek approval from the International FA Board to run an experiment to test out a version of goal-line technology.
'We believe we are putting forward a strong proposal that underlines what is available and how we want to experiment to gather data to accurately determine the quality of the product.
'We are suggesting a possible alternative to the other proposals with a reputable business company, Hawk-Eye, which already operates in top-level tennis and cricket.
'The system operates with cameras and computers linked directly to the referee, providing immediate information without interference, so we believe it fulfils all the criteria.'
The Premier League believe around 10 matches in the top flight have an incident where goal-line technology could clarify whether the ball had crossed the line or not.
Hackett said it was often impossible for assistant referees to have the correct viewing angle to judge.
He added: 'I will demonstrate to the IFAB the example of Manchester United v Tottenham two seasons ago where there was a shot from a long distance.
'The brief for the assistant referee is to stand level with the last defender and for him to have also been in the correct position to judge whether the ball had crossed the line - well he would have had to be an Olympic 100m record holder to have been in that position.'
Some purists believe goal-line technology is a step in the wrong direction but Hackett is insistent the time has come for the game to modernise, but only in terms of judging whether it is a goal or not.
He said: 'Football is ultimately about scoring goals and the question I would ask, is would people be happy with the World Cup final, the most prestigious match there is, being decided by an inaccurate result? We want goals to be a decision based on fact, not opinion.'
FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who is the most important member of the IFAB, has made it clear he supports the introduction of goal-line technology.
Blatter said: 'When a goal is scored the goal should be given - this is a priority and there must be a system.'
The IFAB will also hear updates from other experiments - the one being championed by adidas is a `smartball' system with a micro-chip inside the ball, while the Italian and French federations are proposing separate systems using cameras linked to computers
Hawk-Eye systems are used to judge dubious line calls in tennis, and also on television coverage of international cricket.
Referees' chief Keith Hackett and Premier League general secretary Mike Foster will present proposals to the International FA Board meeting in Manchester on Saturday.
Hackett's video presentation will include the Manchester United v Tottenham two seasons ago when goalkeeper Roy Carroll clearly spilled a long-range shot from then-Spurs midfielder Pedro Mendes over the line but a goal was not given.
Hackett said: 'We are working with Hawk-Eye in order to seek approval from the International FA Board to run an experiment to test out a version of goal-line technology.
'We believe we are putting forward a strong proposal that underlines what is available and how we want to experiment to gather data to accurately determine the quality of the product.
'We are suggesting a possible alternative to the other proposals with a reputable business company, Hawk-Eye, which already operates in top-level tennis and cricket.
'The system operates with cameras and computers linked directly to the referee, providing immediate information without interference, so we believe it fulfils all the criteria.'
The Premier League believe around 10 matches in the top flight have an incident where goal-line technology could clarify whether the ball had crossed the line or not.
Hackett said it was often impossible for assistant referees to have the correct viewing angle to judge.
He added: 'I will demonstrate to the IFAB the example of Manchester United v Tottenham two seasons ago where there was a shot from a long distance.
'The brief for the assistant referee is to stand level with the last defender and for him to have also been in the correct position to judge whether the ball had crossed the line - well he would have had to be an Olympic 100m record holder to have been in that position.'
Some purists believe goal-line technology is a step in the wrong direction but Hackett is insistent the time has come for the game to modernise, but only in terms of judging whether it is a goal or not.
He said: 'Football is ultimately about scoring goals and the question I would ask, is would people be happy with the World Cup final, the most prestigious match there is, being decided by an inaccurate result? We want goals to be a decision based on fact, not opinion.'
FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who is the most important member of the IFAB, has made it clear he supports the introduction of goal-line technology.
Blatter said: 'When a goal is scored the goal should be given - this is a priority and there must be a system.'
The IFAB will also hear updates from other experiments - the one being championed by adidas is a `smartball' system with a micro-chip inside the ball, while the Italian and French federations are proposing separate systems using cameras linked to computers
Technology is Not the way forward!
Having run this blog for a while now, I would like to post my opinions on the issue at hand. However I would also like to hear from you. I would be very interested to see whether you agree or disagree with part or all of what I have to say.
With a number of recent incidents in the premier league there are once again calls for the use of technology to decide on controversial decisions in games:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6352493.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6164412.stm
Football is a simple game but at its best it is quite frankly the most entertaining live sport in existence. No other game flows, brings the same passion, loyalty and outright excitement as football and quite honestly, over complicating it, risks spoiling it.
The game is so simple in fact that it can be played anywhere from the lowest park to the largest stadium and, give or take the talent of the players and the ability of the officials, the game will be played the same. The players will on occasion cheat and the officials will make mistakes.
One of the suggestions is to implement video technology or indeed, introduce radio tracking of the ball, to determine when it has crossed the goal line. This would actually probably work, given that it doesn’t particularly suffer from most of the problems that other technologies might bring.
However, it still makes football a more complicated spectacle. Think of the cost and stoppages. Additionally, if such technology was a success would it result in further innovation? This could ultimately lead to far worse consequences. One can already hear the cries of “we’ve seen how well technology works with the chip in the ball so….”
Even if one accepts the idea that where millions of pounds are potentially at stake, then there can no longer be mistakes, the deeper issues still need to be examined. The arguments that seem to come up again and again include “the cameras are there, let’s use them”, and “they do it in other sports”. These statements are both true, but the point of football is it’s flow. In sports like rugby and cricket where adjudication is requested from the fourth official with a TV monitor, the game has reached a natural break – a couple of minutes of well, nothing. If the game rests upon the decision then the waiting game can infact be quite exciting but if it’s the fourth time in an unappealing game, then indeed it can be rather frustrating. Do we really want to see the fourth official put up the board reading 27 additional minutes? I certainly don’t.
Furthermore, in football a contentious offside decision, for instance is not necessarily a natural break. If it is offside then there is a free kick and break but if not then play continues as normal. Therefore if technology to resolve controversial offside decisions, a player diving or the penalty that never was came into the game, then presumably one must wait for a natural break before examining the evidence for a decision that could well have occurred minutes before. And thus the flow is broken. Yes, the technology is also there for us to track every player on the pitch in real time and the opportunity to supposedly get to the bottom of every last decision. But who wants to see this?
Having determined where everyone is using the dozens of cameras covering each top game we’re still left with the problem in the third round of the FA Cup where the big team travels to the minnows with their shed as a stand. Hardly the same is it. That brings on another issue? Where would the technology stop? Would it be used primarily for the elite leagues? Would this lead to further problems?
More so, think about the pub after the game or MOTD the same night. If technology was implemented then we’d have nothing to talk about. None of that, “Was it over the line?” or “Should it have been a penalty?”
So it seems that on Saturday, the committee have a decision on their hands but for me there is no contest: Football is simple. It should remain that way for the sake of the game, so that school ground arguments don’t degenerate into trying to convince the teacher to check the CCTV camera to decide on a goal, so that the game played on a Sunday afternoon is the same as those played at 3pm on a Saturday and we continue to see fans screaming at the ref after every contentious decision. Yes, mistakes will be made but it is part of the game: a game that we all love.
With a number of recent incidents in the premier league there are once again calls for the use of technology to decide on controversial decisions in games:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6352493.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6164412.stm
Football is a simple game but at its best it is quite frankly the most entertaining live sport in existence. No other game flows, brings the same passion, loyalty and outright excitement as football and quite honestly, over complicating it, risks spoiling it.
The game is so simple in fact that it can be played anywhere from the lowest park to the largest stadium and, give or take the talent of the players and the ability of the officials, the game will be played the same. The players will on occasion cheat and the officials will make mistakes.
One of the suggestions is to implement video technology or indeed, introduce radio tracking of the ball, to determine when it has crossed the goal line. This would actually probably work, given that it doesn’t particularly suffer from most of the problems that other technologies might bring.
However, it still makes football a more complicated spectacle. Think of the cost and stoppages. Additionally, if such technology was a success would it result in further innovation? This could ultimately lead to far worse consequences. One can already hear the cries of “we’ve seen how well technology works with the chip in the ball so….”
Even if one accepts the idea that where millions of pounds are potentially at stake, then there can no longer be mistakes, the deeper issues still need to be examined. The arguments that seem to come up again and again include “the cameras are there, let’s use them”, and “they do it in other sports”. These statements are both true, but the point of football is it’s flow. In sports like rugby and cricket where adjudication is requested from the fourth official with a TV monitor, the game has reached a natural break – a couple of minutes of well, nothing. If the game rests upon the decision then the waiting game can infact be quite exciting but if it’s the fourth time in an unappealing game, then indeed it can be rather frustrating. Do we really want to see the fourth official put up the board reading 27 additional minutes? I certainly don’t.
Furthermore, in football a contentious offside decision, for instance is not necessarily a natural break. If it is offside then there is a free kick and break but if not then play continues as normal. Therefore if technology to resolve controversial offside decisions, a player diving or the penalty that never was came into the game, then presumably one must wait for a natural break before examining the evidence for a decision that could well have occurred minutes before. And thus the flow is broken. Yes, the technology is also there for us to track every player on the pitch in real time and the opportunity to supposedly get to the bottom of every last decision. But who wants to see this?
Having determined where everyone is using the dozens of cameras covering each top game we’re still left with the problem in the third round of the FA Cup where the big team travels to the minnows with their shed as a stand. Hardly the same is it. That brings on another issue? Where would the technology stop? Would it be used primarily for the elite leagues? Would this lead to further problems?
More so, think about the pub after the game or MOTD the same night. If technology was implemented then we’d have nothing to talk about. None of that, “Was it over the line?” or “Should it have been a penalty?”
So it seems that on Saturday, the committee have a decision on their hands but for me there is no contest: Football is simple. It should remain that way for the sake of the game, so that school ground arguments don’t degenerate into trying to convince the teacher to check the CCTV camera to decide on a goal, so that the game played on a Sunday afternoon is the same as those played at 3pm on a Saturday and we continue to see fans screaming at the ref after every contentious decision. Yes, mistakes will be made but it is part of the game: a game that we all love.
Sky Sports News Looking At Issue This Week
Is it Time for Technology? As the prospect of video replays looms on the horizon again, Sky Sports News asks the burning question this week. All week they will be running a series of reports on the hottest debate in the game as the International Football Board (IFAB) meet on Saturday.
Yesterday Sky Sports News' Jeremy Langdon was out canvassing the opinions of the big names in the game - FIFA, referees and of course, managers.
Today they will look at what has happened in other sports, where the use of machines has helped removed human error, not least in Super League where Sky Sports have been at the heart of the video replays to decide on tries.There will also be a take on how it has helped or maybe hindered cricket, tennis and the NFL and a look at the options available to football.
Then on Saturday morning, it's the all-important International Board meeting, which will discuss possible changes to the existing laws of the game - and any new proposals.
You are able to submit your own views on their website at this link: http://www.skysports.com/skysports/article/0,,84-1253702,00.html
Have you seen any of the features? What did you think?
Yesterday Sky Sports News' Jeremy Langdon was out canvassing the opinions of the big names in the game - FIFA, referees and of course, managers.
Today they will look at what has happened in other sports, where the use of machines has helped removed human error, not least in Super League where Sky Sports have been at the heart of the video replays to decide on tries.There will also be a take on how it has helped or maybe hindered cricket, tennis and the NFL and a look at the options available to football.
Then on Saturday morning, it's the all-important International Board meeting, which will discuss possible changes to the existing laws of the game - and any new proposals.
You are able to submit your own views on their website at this link: http://www.skysports.com/skysports/article/0,,84-1253702,00.html
Have you seen any of the features? What did you think?
David Elleray Interview
In the last couple of days I have got in touch with David Elleray, an ex-Premiership referee to see what his opinions are on the matter.The full interview can be accessed from the link below but here are the main talking points:
Do you feel that new media technologies associated with resolving controversial decisions should be introduced into football?
In general I am opposed to the use of technology (with one exception) as I believe that one of the essential attractions of football is that, unlike American football, rugby, cricket, there are very few lengthy stoppages and, for much of the time, it is almost non-stop action. Controversy is also part of the ‘enjoyment’ of the game – people love arguing/discussing incidents, decisions etc...
If yes…
How much technology do you feel should be brought into the game (i.e should it just be used just for goal line decisions or applied to resolve offsides, off the ball incidents)
I would be in favour of goal-line technology for ‘goals’ to let the referee know whether or not the ball fully crossed the line as this is a very difficult decision as the referee/assistant referee is sometimes not in the best position to judge (though no fault of his own).
If these technologies were introduced do you feel that the level of audience satisfaction would alter?
IF the above was introduced I think everyone in the game would be happy. If other technologies came in I believe that whilst there might be fewer disputes the game would become less attractive it would last longer and there would be less flow to the game.
Do you have any personal experiences relating to the matter? Could technology have assisted you?
Technology of the goal-line could have assisted me in the FA Cup semi-final between Middlesbrough and Chesterfield when we could not tell if the ball crossed the line for what would have been Chesterfield’s third goal which would have sent them to the Final (they lost the replay)
Do you feel that new media technologies associated with resolving controversial decisions should be introduced into football?
In general I am opposed to the use of technology (with one exception) as I believe that one of the essential attractions of football is that, unlike American football, rugby, cricket, there are very few lengthy stoppages and, for much of the time, it is almost non-stop action. Controversy is also part of the ‘enjoyment’ of the game – people love arguing/discussing incidents, decisions etc...
If yes…
How much technology do you feel should be brought into the game (i.e should it just be used just for goal line decisions or applied to resolve offsides, off the ball incidents)
I would be in favour of goal-line technology for ‘goals’ to let the referee know whether or not the ball fully crossed the line as this is a very difficult decision as the referee/assistant referee is sometimes not in the best position to judge (though no fault of his own).
If these technologies were introduced do you feel that the level of audience satisfaction would alter?
IF the above was introduced I think everyone in the game would be happy. If other technologies came in I believe that whilst there might be fewer disputes the game would become less attractive it would last longer and there would be less flow to the game.
Do you have any personal experiences relating to the matter? Could technology have assisted you?
Technology of the goal-line could have assisted me in the FA Cup semi-final between Middlesbrough and Chesterfield when we could not tell if the ball crossed the line for what would have been Chesterfield’s third goal which would have sent them to the Final (they lost the replay)
Tuesday, 27 February 2007
Steve Bennett Interview
As part of my research I interviewed Steve Bennett, a Premiership referee, to see where he stood on the topic of technology in football. I have published part of the interview below:
With the previous question in mind what are your views on implementing technology to assist referees in decision making?
"I don’t have any problem with technology – the only situation I believe it would work is goal line assistance providing the technology was reliable enough to give a positive decision within a few seconds of the incident happening. Sometimes a goal line judgement is extremely difficult and several different replays are required"
Do you think the introduction of technology would relieve some of the pressures on referees?
"Yes. But only for the above situation."
If technology was implemented by the Premier League, how do you think this would affect the role and status of the referee within the game?
"It would definitely enhance the referee’s decision making."
To view the full interview click here:
With the previous question in mind what are your views on implementing technology to assist referees in decision making?
"I don’t have any problem with technology – the only situation I believe it would work is goal line assistance providing the technology was reliable enough to give a positive decision within a few seconds of the incident happening. Sometimes a goal line judgement is extremely difficult and several different replays are required"
Do you think the introduction of technology would relieve some of the pressures on referees?
"Yes. But only for the above situation."
If technology was implemented by the Premier League, how do you think this would affect the role and status of the referee within the game?
"It would definitely enhance the referee’s decision making."
To view the full interview click here:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
