England vs Ukraine goal disallowed: Goal line technology a must [VIDEO]

In around 4 hours (14:00 CEST) in Geneva, Switzerland, the IFAB will hold a Special Meeting, with outcomes that will impact billions involved with football around the world. Of most interest will be the decision of IFAB on Item II.1 on the Agenda II. Items for discussion and decision 1. Goal-line technology (GLT) i. Report on the testing process and results ii. Decision in principle on the usage of GLT and implications 2. Additional Assistant Referees (AAR) experiment i. Report on the completed experiments ii. Decision in principle on the usage of AARs and implications 3. Law 4 – The Players’ Equipment (“headscarf”) i. Report by Dr Michel D’Hooghe on the outcome of the medical assessment ii. Decision on usage of the headscarf and implications Read more: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/ifab/01/65/91/74/03_07_2012_ifab_meeting_agenda.pdf

While some believe that stoppages would stifle the flow of the game, the number of fouls committed these days are second to none. Yes, there might be a slight delay, but isn't it better to have a fair result rather than a tarnished one? Thanks.

The build-up was offside anyway. The extra official was unable to judge if the ball was over the line, due to Terry's white socks.

goal line is not a big deal in this situation.. there should be offside line technology

Should've had Cheeseman on the line, worked for the A-League. :)

I'd suggest RFID tags on match balls, put six 14c tags evenly around the ball. Should then be able to tell promptly and accurately in/out goal situation.

The list sure is lengthy, but it is part of the game we all love.

To answer the hockey question, the NHL's in goal camera is a different beast. At a stoppage the referee will ask for a goal/attempt to be reviewed. This is done at NHLHQ in Toronto where an official reviews the vision and provides the on ice referee with a decision over the phone. It is obtrusive, and it is time consuming. Works for the NHL, and certainly adds some theatre, but not an option for football, IMO.

Goal-line technology is needed, no doubt, and the actual debate surrounding that is a justifiable one. But yes, I completely with the sentiment. Tears shouldn't really be shed over the result, simply because Ukraine's clearest chances came from poor decisions from the same linesman. Interesting to see Sepp Blatter come out in support of technology now. Can anyone remember what his comments were post the England-Germany game in 2010? Call me a cynic but.........

In hockey the cameras are angled straight down, from a position behind the keeper's crease, really focusing on the line itself: I think it could be done in football. Don't get me wrong, I don't suppose it would be infallible in football, and I don't really think it's necessary, but if something were to be done, it would at least be viable- better than Hawkeye at least.

Could not have said it better.

Go to ground in the box and don't win the ball, expect a telling off from both the referee and your goal keeper ;-)

Given it doesn't happen often there's surely a strong argument against it - is such an investment worth it for that 1/100 dubious decision? It means the referees are getting it right 99-odd-% of the time. That's actually pretty damned impressive. My concern would be when the ball is cleared from the goal line, at what point does the game get pulled up for it to be examined? What happens if the opposing team goes up the other end and bangs in a quick counter attach? Given its rarity I see no reason to change the system, but then I am a goal keeper so I am m...maa....maaa.....m....mad.

In this particular instance goal line technology is useless as we should be talking about the incompetence of the linesman failing to raise the flag for offside, when the ball was played forward milevski was at least two yards offside, the free header from 3 yards out at the start of the second half was also crossed by an offside player, the only injustice here is England fans, after what happened in south Africa having to listening to this argument, technology isn't the issue its having officials with the courage to make the tough decisions, they should be accountable because as it stands its just too easy for them to say I just didn't see it.

I understand the hype surrounding the fact the goal was over the line and that technology should be introduced. However there is the matter of the player being offside in the build up to the goal, with the officials not calling this correctly. Surely this should mean that the offside rule needs technology to go with it. Had the correct decision been made to start with, the ball would never have been anywhere near the box , never mind over the goal line. The missed offside decision cancels out the missed goal in my opinion. So as sorry as I do feel for the Ukrainian fans (as we all know too well with the lampard goal) they should accept that the decision of offside went in their favour. All england fans would have been rioting had Ukraine won the game and the end result of the game had changed, if the goal had stood. Then the offside rule would have been called into question and another thing for all of us English to moan about. We should have played better against Ukraine and Sweden, so a decision such as this would have mattered for nothing if we had been 3-0 up at the time.

Thanks, Sam. Does in-goal camera require a human observer, or is there some technology that checks "whole of the ball over whole of the line"? With football, IFAB has set a strict criterion that: "The indication of whether a goal has been scored must be immediate and automatically confirmed within one second." If the in-goal camera doesn't provide such validation within 1 second, IFAB will not even consider testing it. Right now, only 2 systems have made it to the final Stage of the IFAB testing: a) "Hawkeye", which uses triangulation to establish the position of the ball by using 6 cameras positioned around the stadium. It is very expensive to set-up (approx. £125,000-£250,000 per stadium) and is useless when the ball is smothered by the GK's body on the line. b) "GoalRef", which relies on magnets placed around the goal posts & sensors are placed in a layer underneath the skin of the ball. This system has been timed to send a signal - within 0.1 second - to the ref's wristwatch or earpiece. It is cheaper to implement & mass produced version is already being developed. More info: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/25/goalline-tech-to-be-trialled

Camera lenses can be cleaned and tested immediately before play starts each half, and intermittently when substitutions are made or other stoppages. 4 Cameras, 1 in each corner each with a field of view covering the entire goal mouth would require 4 separate bodies/limbs to be impeding the view from each angle. To prevent this extremely unlikely situation would simply require an extra camera or 2. Regards. Sam.

That's cool - i dont think anyone minds what the technology is - as long as it is used to get rid of major injustices :-)

Steve How do "in goal" cameras in ice hockey operate when players - GK or other players - are standing on the goal line between the camera & the puck? I know that players' bodies impeding the camera, mud or other debris clouding the lens, etc. were major impediments to "in-goal cameras" that were suggested for GLT in football.

I'm not sure the technology is necessary, but if something were to be introduced, an Ice Hockey style 'in goal' camera might work. these don't slow the pace or flow of Hockey down, and Hockey would seem to be a closer analogue to Soccer than, say, American Football.