Technology for refs

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
If every decision was correct because of the use of technology I suspect a certain amount of the passion would go too. One of my joys, although no good for my blood pressure, is getting incensed about a wrongful decision.
 
If every decision was correct because of the use of technology I suspect a certain amount of the passion would go too. One of my joys, although no good for my blood pressure, is getting incensed about a wrongful decision.

It would be impossible to get everything right, even with the help of technology, because a lot of decisions are down to the ref's opinion about the intent of players making challenges, or whether handball is deliberate. If someone made a decision based on seeing a replay it would still be about an opinion, and you would probably disagree with it if it went against us.
 
I want goal line technology. That's all though. A sensor of some sort that was instant whether the ball had crossed the line or not, if possible.

I don't want to see the game stopping for video replays. I don't really know how that would even work a lot of the time. For example, a corner comes in, ball gets headed towards goal and the ref doesn't know whether the ball has crossed the line or not. Play carries on, with the other team breaking down the other end and scoring. At what point do you stop for the video replay of whether the header from the corner had gone in or not?

It needs to be instant or not at all. Which in fairness, I think is what FIFA/UEFA/Premier League seem to be going for.
 
Last edited:
It's a good point Graz and in fairness, is a bit of a grey area. Using Saturday's example of Bolton v QPR it could be argued it should be introduced as soon as the assistant referee said that he did not have a clear view and therefore couldn't say for sure seeing as it was quite clear from the replays that this is what he was saying. I'd argue it should be at this point, where none of the officials has had a clear view of the incident, that replays should be introduced to help try and clear things up, which with enough cameras scattered about, should be able to do so. Saturday didn't need any extra as it was clear from the TV but in others it can obviously be less clear to see as the TV camera was on the right side to see it that time.

I admit some sort of sensor to determine this instantly would be a much better option though it seems to be taking a very long time for anything to be implimented as it has been talked about it for years now. Extra cameras in the meantime though would provide a very simple & affordable solution to reduced these possible events occuring more often.


And Jeff, re cameras. Again using Saturday as an example, I get the maths involved and framerates but it was a piece of piss to tell from the good old TV camera that the ball had crossed the line. That header would have been about 30mph at a guess as it's not that quick and I don't believe they are super slow-mo cameras used for regular broadcasting. Also, I honestly cannot think of a time where there has been a shot where it has not been possible to tell from a replay a good indication of the balls whereabouts. I've not said definite as the cameras haven't been set up for that purpose but if they were it would be a lot more accurate. Saying that though I do have a terrible memory so await to be proven wrong shortly!! :icon_lol:
 
Also, I honestly cannot think of a time where there has been a shot where it has not been possible to tell from a replay a good indication of the balls whereabouts. I've not said definite as the cameras haven't been set up for that purpose but if they were it would be a lot more accurate. Saying that though I do have a terrible memory so await to be proven wrong shortly!! :icon_lol:

Spot-The-Ball-March-Reveal.jpg

The debate still rages about whether this crossed the line or not due to the slow shutter speed of the camera
 
... a lot of decisions are down to the ref's opinion about the intent of players making challenges

Why does a referee need to know a player's intent when making a challenge?


If someone made a decision based on seeing a replay it would still be about an opinion

But if that person were a 4th (5th?) official rather than the referee it would need some very drastic recasting of the laws of the game. Perhaps a very solid reason why only goal-line technology is being considered.
 
Last edited:
Why does a referee need to know a player's intent when making a challenge?

Law 12 says it's an offence to attempt to kick or trip an opponent. The ref has to decide what is an "attempt", and what isn't.

But even if that wasn't the case, there are a lot of other offences where it's the ref's opinion that matters and different people will interpret things in different ways.
 
In the NHL they have a camera vertically mounted over the goal and this seems to work adequately, although there are times when the goaltenders mitt prevents a definitive answer. They also have a person in an umpires chair who's sole job is to call whether a goal is scored or not. He has a big red light which he turns on if he sees a goal. This can also be overturned using the pictures.
They run adverts whilst this is happening.
I'd have liked to have had a camera for some of the ref decisions last night. I'd have wrapped it round his head.
 
I really can't see why all the clamouring for goal line technology.
Think the time, energy and money would be better off looking at other ways to assist referee's.

One way would be to take the timekeeping away from the ref, let him just rule over the game.
 
In the NHL they have a camera vertically mounted over the goal and this seems to work adequately

Tch, stop with your examples of American efficiency - this is Britain, and because this is Britain I want to see a system involving seventeen men (not women), flags, a series of signal fires on hilltops and Her Royal Highness Elizabeth the Second: Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. God bless her.
 
1966 world cup final?

Haha i'm sure camera technology has moved a little bit further forward since then!! As I say, I understand the theory about frame rates and distance/time etc but when put into practice it just doesn't seem to work out like that. Using the example of the 30mph shot moving 20 inches per frame would mean that replays would be very jumpy but they never are. Just doesn't seem to add up!?!
 
Tch, stop with your examples of American efficiency - this is Britain, and because this is Britain I want to see a system involving seventeen men (not women), flags, a series of signal fires on hilltops and Her Royal Highness Elizabeth the Second: Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. God bless her.

There wouldn't be enough Queens to go around if you keep setting signal fires on top of her. I am happy to have a test run of this system though.
 
Using the example of the 30mph shot moving 20 inches per frame would mean that replays would be very jumpy but they never are. Just doesn't seem to add up!?!

It is jumpy, but your brain fills in the gaps so it looks smooth.

If you have a PVR that allows you to skip from one frame to the next, have a look and see how far the ball can move.
The "super slowmo" cameras they sometimes use are better, but still nowhere near good enough for using on a goal line.


Do you watch cricket on TV?
If you do I'm sure you've seen several slow motion replays when they've tried to determine whether a fielder has caught the ball, or whether it hit the ground first. Sometimes it's impossible to tell because of the amount of movement between frames.
 
Tch, stop with your examples of American efficiency - this is Britain, and because this is Britain I want to see a system involving seventeen men (not women), flags, a series of signal fires on hilltops and Her Royal Highness Elizabeth the Second: Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. God bless her.
Provided you include Cowell and Max Clifford in the 17 men you've got a winner.
 
There wouldn't be enough Queens to go around if you keep setting signal fires on top of her. I am happy to have a test run of this system though.
Perhaps a fire pit would be more appropriate. Keep feeding it with queens and it would become self perpetuating.
 
It is jumpy, but your brain fills in the gaps so it looks smooth.

If you have a PVR that allows you to skip from one frame to the next, have a look and see how far the ball can move.
The "super slowmo" cameras they sometimes use are better, but still nowhere near good enough for using on a goal line.


Do you watch cricket on TV?
If you do I'm sure you've seen several slow motion replays when they've tried to determine whether a fielder has caught the ball, or whether it hit the ground first. Sometimes it's impossible to tell because of the amount of movement between frames.

Not that jumpy though to the extent a ball would move almost 2 foot per frame - using the 30mph example again. Is it not also down to the refresh rate of the screen too though?

I don't understand it all tbh but aren't films captured at 24fps and there's no way you ever see a car, for example, jumping 2 foot each frame and that's if it was moving at a measley 30mph. Not saying your wrong and I'm right and certainly not vice versa but there seems to be more to it than simply the fps and it's something that interests me a bit, technology in football & video editing-ish.

To be honest I loath cricket but I do have a PVR and I did have a frame-by-frame video editor on my laptop as I like to archive stuff from my PVR to a NAS drive, so I'll see if I can get that Bolton QPR non goal as a snipet from MOTD and have a play with it whilst Chelsea is on later. It was only a trial though so probs ran out now but should be able to get another and see what the dealio is!
 
It is jumpy, but your brain fills in the gaps so it looks smooth.

If you have a PVR that allows you to skip from one frame to the next, have a look and see how far the ball can move.
The "super slowmo" cameras they sometimes use are better, but still nowhere near good enough for using on a goal line.

Do you watch cricket on TV?
If you do I'm sure you've seen several slow motion replays when they've tried to determine whether a fielder has caught the ball, or whether it hit the ground first. Sometimes it's impossible to tell because of the amount of movement between frames.

The issue with that is usually caused by foreshortening which is caused by the lens and not the frame rate. I agree you need a higher speed camera but I don't think you need 2000 fps, I think 500 fps would give more than adequate cover.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

Championship

P Pld Pts
1Leeds Utd3882
2Leicester3782
3Ipswich3881
4Southampton3673
5West Brom3866
6Norwich City3861
7Hull City3758
8Coventry City3757
9Preston 3756
10Middlesbro3854
11Cardiff City3853
12Sunderland3848
13Watford3848
14Bristol City3847
15Swansea City3846
16Millwall3843
17Blackburn 3842
18Plymouth 3841
19Stoke City3841
20QPR3840
21Birmingham3839
22Huddersfield3839
23Sheffield W3838
24Rotherham Utd3820

Latest posts

Top