Even simpler would be a system like they use in pro hockey, where a light goes off as soon as the ball crosses the line into the box.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2010 World Cup
- Thread starter Jaffa Cake
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Even simpler would be a system like they use in pro hockey, where a light goes off as soon as the ball crosses the line into the box.
I mean, would there be technology involved?
FIFA's argument against technology is that the rules of football need to be the same at all levels, and goal-line technology is just not feasible to implement at the lower levels due to cost.
However, my low-tech solution of a guy on a chair with a flag can easily be implemented at all levels.
Perhaps on a deck chair, knotted hanky on head, and beer in hand?
Official and TV would have been okay for yesterday's games. International and 'top' division football should be able to afford goal-line technology, screw FIFA's 'all levels' and use all three; goal officials, technology, and an official + TV.---
Ramsey - no, took Charlton off.
Edit - balls, Robben starts and scores; let him cut inside, d'oh! That's better, booked.
Cheers,
OW
It is essentially the same system as you mentioned, a goal judge who sits near the goal line, if he sees the ball go in he hits a switch which turns on the red flashing light.
FIFA said for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil there will be two extra linesmen behind the goals.
well on the third and fourth both central defenders were up front as they should be with set play ... after all a central defender brought them back in the game with his goal in a set play
the problem there was simply that the fast players usually covering as safety simply weren't fast enough or simply didn't bother ... something which one can accept in the 85. minute 2 goals behind but not in the 67. one goal back
in the replay of the 4th goal (or third?) you can see how Müller starts running from inside his own penalty box in frickin' straight line exactly down the middle of the pitch to the other goal through the whole field with not a single english player besides him
the best thing is how he even doesn't bother sprinting until he is way over the middle line
in the other goal nearly the same: running down the pitch in a straight line, most of it not even at full speed, from the penalty box .. yet again unchallenged or guarded by an english player..
in such a situation a midfielder or even attacker who has enough pace simply _has_ to run back
edit: about foreign managers:Otto Rehagel, with Greece 2004 ... not a world cup but close
takao,
If a defender goes up, it is down to him to make sure there is cover, and I don't mean asking or expecting someone else to charge back.
Cheers,
OW
If a defender goes up, it is down to him to make sure there is cover, and I don't mean asking or expecting someone else to charge back.
Cheers,
OW
30 years ago: yes
today with training set pieces intensivly: no
this stuff is trained in clubs over and over again... and side backs, defensive midfielders and wingers are the usual suspects in covering corner kicks
side not: that Vittek penalty-dive just cost me 10 points in my fantasy team .. thank you very much
Well, been a while since I posted. I'm smarting I guess. Rather ashamed of English football at the moment.
Re. the goal/non goal: as other's have said already, 'technology' isn't even required. The approach of rugby and a host of other sports (American 'football'?) is surely enough: a panel of adjudicators in a box looking at accurate video replays. They could communicate the decision within seconds. It only needs to be on very important calls such as in the situation we saw yesterday.
It will still be up to the ref. as to whether he requests the assistance of the video replay.
They are quite happy with this system in rugby, and the system is not available to grass roots rugby, which is also fine.
We don't need chips in balls.
Not an excuse for the result.
Anyway, good luck to those who are left. Bastards.
Re. the goal/non goal: as other's have said already, 'technology' isn't even required. The approach of rugby and a host of other sports (American 'football'?) is surely enough: a panel of adjudicators in a box looking at accurate video replays. They could communicate the decision within seconds. It only needs to be on very important calls such as in the situation we saw yesterday.
It will still be up to the ref. as to whether he requests the assistance of the video replay.
They are quite happy with this system in rugby, and the system is not available to grass roots rugby, which is also fine.
We don't need chips in balls.
Not an excuse for the result.
Anyway, good luck to those who are left. Bastards.
My thoughts on the weekend:
USA vs. Ghana - As usual, disappointed that USA allowed an early goal again. That bad habit and the inability of the American strikers to score in the entire tournament ended up being our downfall. It was really a terrific play by Gyan to score the extra-time goal. Before that happened, I really expected it to go to penalty kicks, which worried me, since it's not something the US team is experienced with.
Germany vs. England - When the goal wasn't allowed, I remember hoping that it didn't prove to be decisive, both because you don't want to see a bad call determine the outcome and also because the aftermath would have been intolerable. I agree with what Klinsmann said on the ESPN postgame show, that one would think that Capello could have used it to rally the team at halftime, point out to them that it should be tied and that they're just as good as Germany and they needed to prove it in the second half. And then they went out and proved in the second half that they are completely inadequate. Germany capitalized on every major defensive breakdown with skill and poise. That first goal by Klose was just a reckless shot in the dark that caught England completely flat-footed.
The sharpest criticism I've seen of the England team in the US is this one. I'm not so sure that the tabloids deserve that much blame, but it does remind me of the critics of the US basketball team in 2004 and 2006. People said that it was an all-star team thrown together without chemistry or heart. Maybe that's the kind of overhaul the England team needs, but who knows if anyone can make it happen.
Argentina vs. Mexico - The only major differences between this game and their second round meeting in 2006 is that this game featured a goal that shouldn't have counted (Tevez' first) and this one didn't go into extra time. That second goal by Tevez was absolutely amazing and very similar to the long-range, extra-time strike by Maxi Rodriguez in 2006 that broke every heart in Mexico. A tough game for Mexico. I can't help but wonder if Mexico has a similar problem as the USA, that their weak qualifying group prevents them from testing themselves enough against top competition. I've also long felt that Mexico relies too heavily on their home-field advantage at Azteca.
All in all, a pretty entertaining weekend of games!
USA vs. Ghana - As usual, disappointed that USA allowed an early goal again. That bad habit and the inability of the American strikers to score in the entire tournament ended up being our downfall. It was really a terrific play by Gyan to score the extra-time goal. Before that happened, I really expected it to go to penalty kicks, which worried me, since it's not something the US team is experienced with.
Germany vs. England - When the goal wasn't allowed, I remember hoping that it didn't prove to be decisive, both because you don't want to see a bad call determine the outcome and also because the aftermath would have been intolerable. I agree with what Klinsmann said on the ESPN postgame show, that one would think that Capello could have used it to rally the team at halftime, point out to them that it should be tied and that they're just as good as Germany and they needed to prove it in the second half. And then they went out and proved in the second half that they are completely inadequate. Germany capitalized on every major defensive breakdown with skill and poise. That first goal by Klose was just a reckless shot in the dark that caught England completely flat-footed.
The sharpest criticism I've seen of the England team in the US is this one. I'm not so sure that the tabloids deserve that much blame, but it does remind me of the critics of the US basketball team in 2004 and 2006. People said that it was an all-star team thrown together without chemistry or heart. Maybe that's the kind of overhaul the England team needs, but who knows if anyone can make it happen.
Argentina vs. Mexico - The only major differences between this game and their second round meeting in 2006 is that this game featured a goal that shouldn't have counted (Tevez' first) and this one didn't go into extra time. That second goal by Tevez was absolutely amazing and very similar to the long-range, extra-time strike by Maxi Rodriguez in 2006 that broke every heart in Mexico. A tough game for Mexico. I can't help but wonder if Mexico has a similar problem as the USA, that their weak qualifying group prevents them from testing themselves enough against top competition. I've also long felt that Mexico relies too heavily on their home-field advantage at Azteca.
All in all, a pretty entertaining weekend of games!
I think Capello should stay. A lot of the criticisms people are putting forward are just garbage as far as I'm concerned - doesn't speak English well enough, too authoritarian, too many Italian assistants blah blah blah.
The fact is, England as a team were overrated. Individually the squad contains more than its share of world-class players, but most of them were old dogs that Capello was unable to teach new tricks due to years of being accustomed to doing it differently. When blame gets assigned for England's exits, it should be the players and FA first on the list, with Capello a distant third. Maybe his isn't England's long-term solution, but I think he should get a chance to rebuild England and take them through the Euros at least. Putting lots of blame on Capello is just papering over the cracks.
The fact is, England as a team were overrated. Individually the squad contains more than its share of world-class players, but most of them were old dogs that Capello was unable to teach new tricks due to years of being accustomed to doing it differently. When blame gets assigned for England's exits, it should be the players and FA first on the list, with Capello a distant third. Maybe his isn't England's long-term solution, but I think he should get a chance to rebuild England and take them through the Euros at least. Putting lots of blame on Capello is just papering over the cracks.
I'll have to leave it as a disagreement, I'd check people were doing their task first.
Re fantasy team - there we are in the same boat.
Cheers,
OW
the thing is not the difference between higher and upper leagues but more that the difference between countries would also be ridicolous
sure in italy, spain, germany england with their imense TV money no problem but if i just look at the austrian league how much money do they get by broadcasters ? in total 17-18 millions for the top league and the second league combined
and for the second league the requirement is 3 cameras... 1 for total and 2 for close ups one the same side ... not even opposite angle or *gasp* goal line cameras
in fact not even the first league get's those goal cameras ... and how much will you see on that replay from 50 meters away ? not much i'm afraid
not even talking about video walls here which would make it more ridiculous.. with perhaps half of the teams in the first league having those
having two goal line referees would work in pretty much every league.. TV replay only in the big ones (england, germany, spain, italy, france, MLS, scotland, dutch.. and after that the air might be getting thin already)
Why hold people back? If some can, good, if others can't, shame. Leagues and countries should do the best they can.
Cheers,
OW
Harry Redknapp has always been the best candidate for England manager imo, even when he was at West Ham. Tottenham now shows exactly what he can do when given not even extensive resources. It's good for England I think to read that he's just put his hand up for the job. Bad for Spurs though, but country calls..
Or like some newspaper: "Don't mention the score!"
BTW... 2-1 against Slovakia.
Another not too impressive performance, but we're through! I'll take that
Hmm, the same Harry Redknapp who prefers the exact same 4-4-2 big man/little man striker duo that Capello uses?
What would change, nothing?
No thanks. Fabio still has my vote.
Why would Redknapp be better? Because he's English? Having an English manager has won us nothing since the mid 60s.
Let's look at his record:
Bournemouth
Football League Division Three: 1986–87
Football League Trophy: 1983–84
West Ham United
UEFA Intertoto Cup: 1999
Portsmouth
FA Cup: 2007-08
Football League Division One: 2002–03
FA Community Shield: Runners-Up 2008
Barclays Asia Trophy Winner 2007
Tottenham Hotspur
Football League Cup: Runners-Up 2009
Barclays Asia Trophy Winner 2009
Now Fabio:
Milan
Serie A (4): 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, 1995–96
Supercoppa Italiana (3): 1992, 1993, 1994
UEFA Champions League (1): 1993–94
European Super Cup (1): 1994
Roma
Serie A (1): 2000–01
Supercoppa Italiana (1): 2001
Juventus
Serie A (1): 2005–06 (revoked)
Real Madrid
La Liga (2): 1996–97, 2006–07
This man is a far superior manager. Players complained Sven was too soft, now they complain the manager's too hard on them. And don't give me "His English isn't very good!", that's classic British tabloid racism.
And that's the rub. I lay the blame for this poor display, squarely at the door of the gutter press (and the BBC). England are not a great team. Anyone who spends any time studying football (as most of us here on this very board do) can see they have enormous flaws. But the team get's so trumped up by sections of the media, that your typical tracksuited moron believes that the England team are actually Brasil 1982 in disguise. When the team then 'underperform' the press vilify them and a scapegoat is sought. In this case it's a man from Italy. Yes he did make some poor decisions, but a kneejerk reaction to ditch him as the team didn't turn up is farcical.
This isn't a pop at you awmazz, I'm just rather cross at the whole shooting match due to listening to Radio5/Talksport before and after today's press conference. My own fault I know, but the jingoism drives me absolutely bananas.
EDIT Sorry for the long post all. I got a bit carried away...
Rules-gurus again please for Tevez' goal - is there no offside in the opposition's penalty box?
The goal was offside because he met the criteria for an offside, he was behind the last man when the ball left the foot of Messi and secondly he was involved in the play. If he had just let the ball from Messi go in, which appeared to be going in anyway it would not have been offside. Once he decided to become involved by heading the ball it became an offside.
I agree completely. If the FA know what's good for England they will beg Fabio to stay and then fire themselves.
I've been reading some of the UK tabloids today and it is simply nauseating. The scapegoating of Capello is ridiculous in the extreme. People here in the US complain than nobody cares about soccer, but at least most USA fans and the press temper their lofty ambitions with pretty realistic expectations. As a result, the team goes about its business without distorted perceptions of reality.
I still hold that the majority of the blame should be distributed between the players, the FA and I'll add the press as capoerista pointed out. One thing England seems terrible at is letting their team get on with the job of playing and the manager with managing. The press and pundits seem keen to interefere by making extreme statements and trying to whip up the public.
The odd thing is, more people seem upset with Capello than England's Brave John Terry™, who played badly and was a PR disaster.