As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
QuartzGooner wrote:No problems with it, always seems very unfair to me if a ball crosses the line and a goal is not given.
I have no problem with it being extended for fouls and offsides too.
But I would have an appeal system, each manager can question three decisions per 90 minutes, with a further appeal if a game goes to extra time.
In the NFL such appeals are resolved quickly, certainly speedier than a group of players surrounding the referee trying to get him to change his mind on a decision, which rarely happens, and resolved with video replays being shown in normal and slow motion on a screen so the fans can understand the decision.
I do not care that it will not happen outside the Premier League for now, because the Premier League is where nearly all of the the big money and big teams are.
can,t stand the idea of managerial challenges
if there are none or 400 clear cut decisions i would rather it be at the behest of the 4th official watching a monitor for the blatently obvious.
i don,t want it played out as crowd entertainment or for gamesmanship
watch the monitor tell the ref make the decision i,m not averse to them showing replays to us but not to slow the game up just part and parcel of the mileu
it does seem a bit baffling for example when koscielny was sent off v man city it happened right in front of me but i had no clue what had gone on.
listening to people behind recieving texts as to why he was dismissed is galling
i think i am grown up to be able to say yes the ref was right
thats the thing if a decision can be right i want it to be right
i don,t need to whoop and hollar in anticipation of a decision
the game is exciting enough
It's funny but I am opposed to that even as it is - my experience at games is that showing replays is a distraction as fans (inc me) start watching the tv replays even as the ball is back in play Again I know I am being a grumpy old git but this whole concept seems to be aimed at the "entertainment generation" of supporters and anything that has been brought in for those fcukers has been a negative for the game imo
QuartzGooner wrote:No problems with it, always seems very unfair to me if a ball crosses the line and a goal is not given.
I have no problem with it being extended for fouls and offsides too.
But I would have an appeal system, each manager can question three decisions per 90 minutes, with a further appeal if a game goes to extra time.
In the NFL such appeals are resolved quickly, certainly speedier than a group of players surrounding the referee trying to get him to change his mind on a decision, which rarely happens, and resolved with video replays being shown in normal and slow motion on a screen so the fans can understand the decision.
I do not care that it will not happen outside the Premier League for now, because the Premier League is where nearly all of the the big money and big teams are.
can,t stand the idea of managerial challenges
if there are none or 400 clear cut decisions i would rather it be at the behest of the 4th official watching a monitor for the blatently obvious.
i don,t want it played out as crowd entertainment or for gamesmanship
watch the monitor tell the ref make the decision i,m not averse to them showing replays to us but not to slow the game up just part and parcel of the mileu
it does seem a bit baffling for example when koscielny was sent off v man city it happened right in front of me but i had no clue what had gone on.
listening to people behind recieving texts as to why he was dismissed is galling
i think i am grown up to be able to say yes the ref was right
thats the thing if a decision can be right i want it to be right
i don,t need to whoop and hollar in anticipation of a decision
the game is exciting enough
It's funny but I am opposed to that even as it is - my experience at games is that showing replays is a distraction as fans (inc me) start watching the tv replays even as the ball is back in play Again I know I am being a grumpy old git but this whole concept seems to be aimed at the "entertainment generation" of supporters and anything that has been brought in for those fcukers has been a negative for the game imo
Cant see the probelm augie.If it means getting the decision right who cares about a delay in play.There are enough delays when players go down faking injury.And why should the fans who pay to go to matches not see what the fans at home are seeing.
I am no fan of England or Lampard but when the ball is two foot over the line and a billion people can see it on tv there has to be something very wrong
I think we should call you Platini
I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
augie wrote:I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
Isn't it an instant decision in which a message is flashed to a watch that the ref is wearing. Think its less than 1 second and the ref knows if it crossed the line or not its not down to replays and a 5th/6th/7th official watching a TV
augie wrote:I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
Isn't it an instant decision in which a message is flashed to a watch that the ref is wearing. Think its less than 1 second and the ref knows if it crossed the line or not its not down to replays and a 5th/6th/7th official watching a TV
And that's why this is distinguishable from using technology/replays for other decisions, in which there will always be an element of a judgement call. Technology will be able to tell incontrovertibly whether or not it was a goal.
Which is more than can be said for any penalty call.
augie wrote:I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
Isn't it an instant decision in which a message is flashed to a watch that the ref is wearing. Think its less than 1 second and the ref knows if it crossed the line or not its not down to replays and a 5th/6th/7th official watching a TV
That augie. So out of touch with modern technology. I heard his missus still hasn't forgiven him for ruining the microwave after he had tried to play a DVD on it!
augie wrote:I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
Isn't it an instant decision in which a message is flashed to a watch that the ref is wearing. Think its less than 1 second and the ref knows if it crossed the line or not its not down to replays and a 5th/6th/7th official watching a TV
That augie. So out of touch with modern technology. I heard his missus still hasn't forgiven him for ruining the microwave after he had tried to play a DVD on it!
augie wrote:I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
Isn't it an instant decision in which a message is flashed to a watch that the ref is wearing. Think its less than 1 second and the ref knows if it crossed the line or not its not down to replays and a 5th/6th/7th official watching a TV
That augie. So out of touch with modern technology. I heard his missus still hasn't forgiven him for ruining the microwave after he had tried to play a DVD on it!
augie wrote:I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
Isn't it an instant decision in which a message is flashed to a watch that the ref is wearing. Think its less than 1 second and the ref knows if it crossed the line or not its not down to replays and a 5th/6th/7th official watching a TV
And that's why this is distinguishable from using technology/replays for other decisions, in which there will always be an element of a judgement call. Technology will be able to tell incontrovertibly whether or not it was a goal.
Which is more than can be said for any penalty call.
So explain that to me then - if it is a sensor thing then it can show that the ball has crossed the line but can it say that all of the ball has crossed the line ? If it is a camera then can it say with 100% certainty that all of the ball has crossed the line if it doesnt touch the ground ? Last weeks boruc incident showed a ball that appeared to cross the line but to say that it 100% of the ball crossed the line is nigh on impossible unless it hits the ground and that is my point - tv evidence will not clear up that issue no matter how many times you watch it
augie wrote:I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
Isn't it an instant decision in which a message is flashed to a watch that the ref is wearing. Think its less than 1 second and the ref knows if it crossed the line or not its not down to replays and a 5th/6th/7th official watching a TV
And that's why this is distinguishable from using technology/replays for other decisions, in which there will always be an element of a judgement call. Technology will be able to tell incontrovertibly whether or not it was a goal.
Which is more than can be said for any penalty call.
So explain that to me then - if it is a sensor thing then it can show that the ball has crossed the line but can it say that all of the ball has crossed the line ? If it is a camera then can it say with 100% certainty that all of the ball has crossed the line if it doesnt touch the ground ? Last weeks boruc incident showed a ball that appeared to cross the line but to say that it 100% of the ball crossed the line is nigh on impossible unless it hits the ground and that is my point - tv evidence will not clear up that issue no matter how many times you watch it
Might be wrong mate but it's got something to do with technology
augie wrote:I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
Isn't it an instant decision in which a message is flashed to a watch that the ref is wearing. Think its less than 1 second and the ref knows if it crossed the line or not its not down to replays and a 5th/6th/7th official watching a TV
And that's why this is distinguishable from using technology/replays for other decisions, in which there will always be an element of a judgement call. Technology will be able to tell incontrovertibly whether or not it was a goal.
Which is more than can be said for any penalty call.
So explain that to me then - if it is a sensor thing then it can show that the ball has crossed the line but can it say that all of the ball has crossed the line ? If it is a camera then can it say with 100% certainty that all of the ball has crossed the line if it doesnt touch the ground ? Last weeks boruc incident showed a ball that appeared to cross the line but to say that it 100% of the ball crossed the line is nigh on impossible unless it hits the ground and that is my point - tv evidence will not clear up that issue no matter how many times you watch it
Might be wrong mate but it's got something to do with technology
Pretty sure there is a video on BBC that shows how it works....
augie wrote:I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
Isn't it an instant decision in which a message is flashed to a watch that the ref is wearing. Think its less than 1 second and the ref knows if it crossed the line or not its not down to replays and a 5th/6th/7th official watching a TV
And that's why this is distinguishable from using technology/replays for other decisions, in which there will always be an element of a judgement call. Technology will be able to tell incontrovertibly whether or not it was a goal.
Which is more than can be said for any penalty call.
So explain that to me then - if it is a sensor thing then it can show that the ball has crossed the line but can it say that all of the ball has crossed the line ? If it is a camera then can it say with 100% certainty that all of the ball has crossed the line if it doesnt touch the ground ? Last weeks boruc incident showed a ball that appeared to cross the line but to say that it 100% of the ball crossed the line is nigh on impossible unless it hits the ground and that is my point - tv evidence will not clear up that issue no matter how many times you watch it
I imagine that with sensors it would be fitted in the middle of the goal and the middle of the posts.
They can easily measure the distance between the sensor and the edge of the ball, and add to that the distance between the middle of the post and the edge of the goal-line. If the sensor in the ball goes past the sensor in the goal by more than that distance, it's a goal.
And with HawkEye I can't say I understand the fine mechanics of it but I don't see why its accuracy has to depend on the ball making contact with the ground to create a digital image thingy?
QuartzGooner wrote:No problems with it, always seems very unfair to me if a ball crosses the line and a goal is not given.
I have no problem with it being extended for fouls and offsides too.
But I would have an appeal system, each manager can question three decisions per 90 minutes, with a further appeal if a game goes to extra time.
In the NFL such appeals are resolved quickly, certainly speedier than a group of players surrounding the referee trying to get him to change his mind on a decision, which rarely happens, and resolved with video replays being shown in normal and slow motion on a screen so the fans can understand the decision.
I do not care that it will not happen outside the Premier League for now, because the Premier League is where nearly all of the the big money and big teams are.
can,t stand the idea of managerial challenges
if there are none or 400 clear cut decisions i would rather it be at the behest of the 4th official watching a monitor for the blatently obvious.
i don,t want it played out as crowd entertainment or for gamesmanship
watch the monitor tell the ref make the decision i,m not averse to them showing replays to us but not to slow the game up just part and parcel of the mileu
it does seem a bit baffling for example when koscielny was sent off v man city it happened right in front of me but i had no clue what had gone on.
listening to people behind recieving texts as to why he was dismissed is galling
i think i am grown up to be able to say yes the ref was right
thats the thing if a decision can be right i want it to be right
i don,t need to whoop and hollar in anticipation of a decision
the game is exciting enough
It's funny but I am opposed to that even as it is - my experience at games is that showing replays is a distraction as fans (inc me) start watching the tv replays even as the ball is back in play Again I know I am being a grumpy old git but this whole concept seems to be aimed at the "entertainment generation" of supporters and anything that has been brought in for those fcukers has been a negative for the game imo
oh yes i agree with you mate.
it drives me mad when we get a corner and rather than get behind the team the crowd are looking at the screens at the incident leading up to it.
it probably could be done in a natural break in the play though
augie wrote:I do understand where you are coming from donaldo but the fat frank shot and roy carroll's screw up in mancland a few years ago are the exception rather than the rule - imo we are more likely to see more incidents like the boruc one in the reading v southampton game last weekend where after several tv replays we still couldnt judge if it was a goal or not How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play
yes i agree it should only be for the blatently obvious.
if you have to go into the ins and outs of a cats arse it should be left to the ref
Again I know I am being a grumpy old git but this whole concept seems to be aimed at the "entertainment generation" of supporters and anything that has been brought in for those fcukers has been a negative for the game imo
How long should a game be allowed to be held up ? Personally I think that footballers get off too lightly as it is cos their constant time wasting see's us fans (mugs) paying extortinate prices for about 55 minutes of play 
