FIFA approves goal-line technology

UEFA president, Michel Platini, has ruled out using either of the 2 IFAB-approved GLT systems in European competition for the foreseeable future. Platini said the Assistant Referee behind each goal line is sufficient, which is hilarious since, the one occasion when that Assistant was called to make a decision ... he got it wrong! :-) Read more: http://ascology.com/news/sports/football/26150-UEFA-rules-out-goal-line-technology.html

Fuss, you have missed the point. I'm not talking about replays for match officials, I'm talking about replays sitting at home on TV - which will be shown over and over an over (maybe not 100 times but I'm sure you get the idea - how many times was John Terry's Euro goal line clearance shown on TV?? Recon i saw it at least 50 times). On a close call there'll still be dispute among football fans whether Hawkeye or Goal-Ref got it right. My point was simply that tennis doesnt seem to have disputes because they only seem to show the Hawk-eye version so there is nothing to compare it to.

Of course, installation is only one aspect to the use of GLT. The more important aspect is: what the competition organising body stipulates. So, even if the stadium owner installs the technology, it will be used IF - and only IF - the competition organiser (e.g. FFA for HAL; AFC for ACL, ACQ, WCQ) allows the use of GLT in that competition. So, for HAL matches it will be either: a) every stadium must have GLT functioning for HAL matches; or b) GLT will not be used during HAL matches (regardless of whether it is installed). Finally, FIFA stipulate that, on the day of the match, the final decision lies with the match referee. If the match referee is not happy that the technology is working properly on the day, he has the authority to proceed without the GLT being used.

Philip There can't be 100 replays from every angle. As I mentioned, IFAB was very specific when they approved Hawk-Eye & Goal-Ref. Both systems must give the match official a signal within 1 second of the whole of the ball crossing the whole of the line. There will not even be 1 replay used by the match officials.

From where I sit as an outsider, certain noisy elements of the AFL commentariat don't seem to think the new video review asystem is better than what was before(nothing?). I agree though, the guiding principle for any sporting organisation looking to change the rules of the game it administers must always be similar to the paramedics creed: First do no harm.

Fuss, when GLT is used in football there will still be a replay - there will be 100 replays from every other camera at the ground just as there is now. (Granted we may not see the Hawk-eye version) Whereas in tennis they don't seem to show the 'live' version replayed at all - they only show hawk-eye - hence no disputes.

With GLT not being mandatory, I cant see why anyone would install it. Stadium owners have no incentive to pay for it, and if clubs own the ground, they are being asked to spend $250K on something that is neutral to their team ie it is just as likely to assist the opposition as their own club. As a ground owner I'd be asking myself 'why bother?' Apart from the odd exception where clubs install it because they want to be seen to be 'leaders', I expect that only when FIFA make it mandatory for a competition will you see the tournament hosts installing the system.

Philip In relation to your comment about Hawk-Eye Technology, I'm pretty sure a digital display is what we will receive from the football version, too (although, we the digital replay won't be seen by fans). From what I gather, Hawk-Eye Technology is NOT meant to be a video replay of what actually happened. Rather, the technology uses "triangulation" to predict the statistically most likely trajectory of a moving image that is being tracked by multiple fixed cameras. IFAB has mentioned that, when Hawk-Eye is used for GLT, there will be no replay. Rather the technology will be programmed to give the match officials a signal within 1 second, should the technology predict the whole of the ball crossed the whole of the line.

Kasey, I don't think it matters that the NFL still cant get video "completely correct" after 15 years, or that cricket or AFL or NRL have occasional glitches. It's only technology knockers that expect it to be '100% perfect or don't use it at all'. To me the question is not "is the system 100% perfect?", the question is "is the system, overall, better than what we had before?" As for tennis, which i admit to not being a fan of, when there is a 'hawkeye' call, all you see on replay is a digital ball crossing or hitting a digital line. You don't see a replay of the real thing and so the viewer has no idea what really happened as you are only shown the artificial version - hence there can be no controversy.

The average punter sitting at home can have no problem edudicating off the telle with the replays I think the F.F.A should pounce on this and use it for next years H.A.L,we start beofre the E.P.L. we could be one of the first leagues of our code in the world to use it.

I just hope if FFA decide to implement GLT( which I now have come around to) that they decide to allocate the appropriate resources to it to ensure it is done properly, so that all clubs are singing from the same hymn sheet from the start of the season proper. I can only think of one sport amongst the many that now use some form of technology where the consensus is that the introduction has improved the game. (That game being tennis) Even our omnipresent bigger brothers here in Australia haven't been able to get it completely right to the chagrin of a few talking heads in the local media circles, I'm thinking Origin 1 this year (2012) and yesterday's Melbourne v Richmond(Sat 7Jul12) fiascoes. And yes I completely understand the differences in scoring methods and frequency makes it an unfair comparison, but the point is, How can it be only Tennis fans that seem happier now with Hawkeye than pre-hawkeye. Every Summer we get pieces moaning about Cricket's DRS. The Americans still struggle to get their video replay official completely correct in the NFL 15 years after it was introduced.

Kasey From what I've been reading, this will never happen b/c the organising body for each competition will either include/not include "GLT use" for that particular competition. So, for WCQs, ACQs, ACL, etc. the AFC Competition Regulations will determine whether GLT will be enforced - the decision won't be up to individual member Associations. So, even if the FFA implemented GLT for HAL, if the AFC doesn't endorse it for ACL, the match officials would not use the GLT when officiating ACL matches in Australia.

I wonder if we will ever see the ridiculous situation of a country that doesn't have GLT refusing to play in a country that does us it, As in the Decision Referral system in Cricket and India's stubborn refusal to use it in Australia despite being the country for whose whining it was introduced to alleviate. I think the power of FIFA and the carrot of the WC remains the ultimate big stick for FIFA to pull any errant nations into line. Good to see it finally here and for it to be up to each FA to decide if and which system to use.

Good to know the technology has been rigourously tested - on the field & in the labs. And, it won't interrupt play at all. No ridiculous "challenges", or theatrical air-drawing of TV screens, or contrived suspense ... just a simple message to the match officials within 1 second of the GLT signalling "goal". The GLT is not mandatory. It's up to each football organising body to decide "GLT" or "No GLT". With installation costing around 250k per stadium & goal-line disputes very rare, it would be fiscally irresponsible to implement GLT anywhere other than official FIFA/Confederation tournaments & the wealthier Euro leagues.

FINALLY! It's been a long time coming, but finally FIFA have recognised the importance of goal line technology and will now be using it.