Debate-ending technology?

[Hammoudi]

Soccer to Test Ball With Microchip Beep

Sat Feb 26, 2:18 PM ET Technology - AP


CARDIFF, Wales - A soccer ball containing a microchip that beeps when it crosses the goal line will be tested at this year's under-17 world championship.


The International Football Association Board, which makes the rules for world soccer, agreed to the trial Saturday at its annual general meeting.


The microchip ball, which was produced in part by Adidas, was used in a game between Nuremberg and Nuremberg reserves on Wednesday in Germany.


When the ball crosses the line, the microchip transmits a signal to a watchlike device on the referee's wrist, making either a beep or vibration.


"Not a day goes by without technology making progress," FIFA president Sepp Blatter said. "We therefore have a duty to at least examine whether new technology could be used in football.


Blatter added that the key issue is to make sure the technology does not undermine the officials or rules of the game.


The English Football Association also offered to experiment with the ball. However, the Premier League and Football League use balls made by rival manufacturers.


The under-17 worlds are set for Sept. 16-Oct. 2 in Peru. The technology most likely will not be ready for next year's World Cup in Germany.


Calls for new technology resurfaced in England after Tottenham was denied a clear goal at Manchester United on Jan. 4. Goalkeeper Roy Carroll dropped the ball behind the line, but the officials missed the call.


The IFAB, in rulings to take effect July 1, also decided that:


_any tackle endangering a player's health will earn an automatic red card.


_a player is offside if he is nearer to his opponent's goal line than both the ball and next-to-last opponent. "The position of any part of the player's head, body or feet will be the deciding factor, and not the player's arms," the IFAB said.


_six substitutes will be allowed for international exhibitions.


_opponents must be at least 2 yards from a thrower until the ball is in play.


Since its inception in the late 19th century, the IFAB has met annually to review soccer rules. The IFAB consists of four representatives from FIFA and one each from the soccer associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

[Hammoudi]

And in a related story, Juve has opened a sweatshop in a secret location in Asia to manufacture counter chips that signal everytime a Juve player kicks a ball and it reaches the goal line. Also, a new device disabling the signal will be installed in every Juve goal to disturb the ball's function. And knowing how sharp the team is, they decided to hire a special guy to make sure the device is changed after half time.


Oh Man!! Poor Carrol, he can be the GK that changed soccer forever.

 

[snake]

Oh Man!! Poor Carrol, he can be the GK that changed soccer forever.

lol thats the funniest thing ive heard in a while.
Technology coming in these days are practically talked about for every sport.

I say we stick to the umpires.

I hate NFL now because of all the stops and starts used by technology. I really cant stand it.

But if that came into soccer, the Manager for each match has the option to challenge a call. If he chooses to challenge a call, he has to lose one of his substitutions?

 

[Hammoudi]

One of his substitutions is too much. There has to be a limit of two per half and if he asks for more - and if he is proven wrong each time- one of the Goal-Kicks for his team will be a corner for the other team.

 

[snake]

One of his substitutions is too much. There has to be a limit of two per half and if he asks for more - and if he is proven wrong each time- one of the Goal-Kicks for his team will be a corner for the other team.

lol thats why i dont like all this tech stuff. it gets the game too complicated and all the fundementals are lost.

 

[Handoyo]

I just wonder y'now...Why bother trying all this stuff when all controversies in football can be solved just by accepting the fact that an instant replay is...well...instantenous and a referee should only use it for major decisions such as to check the credibility of a goal (offside, foul, handball, cross the line etc) and serious fouls.

If we, as a spectator, can judge the referee's decision in just 10 seconds with the help of television replays, surely, with special cameras in designated areas just for the refs, they are able to provide the referee with much faster footages!


Handyo

 

[Stefan]

Oh Man!! Poor Carrol, he can be the GK that changed soccer forever.

lol thats the funniest thing ive heard in a while.
Technology coming in these days are practically talked about for every sport.

I say we stick to the umpires.

I hate NFL now because of all the stops and starts used by technology. I really cant stand it.

But if that came into soccer, the Manager for each match has the option to challenge a call. If he chooses to challenge a call, he has to lose one of his substitutions?

Helal I don't what you are smoking but if we leave it to the umpires then we will keep having 10-20 bad decisions a test match. These decisions are ruining players careers. Its not fair and its not acceptable. Technology is a must in this day and age.

 

[Hammoudi]

Men and machines

Uli Hesse-Lichtenberger

On Sunday, Schalke 04 won 3-1 away at Borussia Moenchengladbach to draw level on points with Bayern once more at the top of the league. It was a deserved win for a fine team in blue thanks mainly to a hat-trick from Ailton. Schalke's coach Ralf Rangnick said he was happy with his side's performance save for the first twenty minutes, while his counterpart Dick Advocaat let it be known his team had lost to a better opponent and that, basically, was that.

Yet it could have been different. Ailton missed a sitter on 32 minutes, and six minutes later Gladbach went ahead through a penalty for a presumed shove on striker Wesley Sonck. When the cross sailed in Sonck was offside, but the assistant referee missed that.


As he went up for the ball, Sonck suddenly spread his arms like a man shot from behind and came crashing to the ground. TV replays from various angles couldn't disclose any wrongdoing by Schalke's young defender Christian Pander, let alone a solid push in the back. But the whistle had been blown and Joerg Boehme dutifully slotted the spot kick home.

If Gladbach had managed to sit on that lead and win the game, all hell would have broken loose. Especially since a week earlier referees had blundered left, right and centre at various grounds around the league, with Stuttgart's coach Matthias Sammer saying he couldn't say anything - 'Otherwise I'm out of a job, because if I told the truth, they would do more than just suspend me'- and Bochum's gaffer Peter Neururer claiming his side had now been robbed of twelve points this season by the men in black.

When Bochum were promptly awarded a debated (yet correct) penalty on Saturday against Freiburg, who also had their keeper controversially sent off, Freiburg's coach Volker Finke darkly hinted Neururer had used psychological warfare on the referees: 'We knew that it was very unfortunate timing to play Bochum now, following last week's remarks. I had told my boys: Let's hope nothing lukewarm will occur in the box.'

Do we, the fans, really enjoy such mud-slinging and endless second-guessing?

And are fans really gloating when they win a crucial match thanks to a wrong decision, or do supporters whose team has been robbed quickly get over this because they have something to debate down at the pub? After all, these are some of the arguments always brought forth against the use of video replays during matches to assess critical situations.

Accusations and complaints are part and parcel of the game, we are told, and supporters would sorely miss baiting the referee Monday morning at work.

Excuse me, but that's a circular argument that doesn't lead anywhere, because it defends the status quo simply by saying it's the status quo. Of course the feeling that someone's been cheated is part of the game, because we've never really tried to do something about it.


“ I doubt there are too many fans out there who prefer losing a game under suspect circumstances to winning it fair and square, only because the former option will give them something to hang a conversation on. ”


And of course supporters complain about referees on Monday morning because they happen to be wrong from time to time and why would you not talk about that? Yet somehow I'm not sure that this is really one of football's major attractions. I doubt there are too many fans out there who prefer losing a game under suspect circumstances to winning it fair and square, only because the former option will give them something to hang a conversation on.

Another argument, offered even by coaches such as Kaiserslautern's Kurt Jara, is that using the help of video replays would 'undermine the referee's authority'. There's half a dozen things you could reply to that, including that it doesn't much help a referee's authority to be under verbal barrage from the bench or being forced to justify himself after the match for having gotten a particular penalty situation wrong

But I think the basic one is this: it's not the referee's job to exert authority. His job is to apply the rules correctly and get his decisions right. It's only because there is no-one (and no thing) to help him with this task that he's got to have authority.

Besides, what does 'undermine authority' mean anyway? Does it mean players will start a brawl and hack each other down mindlessly, only because a referee has been overruled by someone with access to a TV screen? It's been my experience that a referee loses control and authority much quicker if one side feels hard done by or even cheated.

Not to mention that some referees are often taking authority too far. After the first round of matches after the refereeing scandal had broken, Bochum's Marcel Maltritz was asked whether something had changed as regards the relationship between players and refs, and he replied: 'No. Referee Kemmling was just as arrogant as always.'

That scandal is the main reason video replays have become a topic again in Germany, not the string of faulty decisions that marked last week's games.

If there is a referee, the idea goes, who is trying to manipulate a match, his plans could be thwarted by a fourth official using video evidence to overrule the crook. This method would have stopped Robert Hoyzer early on.

Maybe it would even have deterred him from trying such shenanigans in the first place.

This line of reasoning suddenly makes video replays an enticing idea for FA functionaries under fire. 'We have to look at that topic without prejudice', said Theo Zwanziger, one of the two presidents of the German FA.

'We must realise that professional football has changed in a way that allows us to use modern technologies.' Of course neither the idea nor the technology is really 'modern', but better late than never. I still have to figure out why a simple peek at a screen is such a holy cow.

Over the last fifteen years, my club has lost one championship on account of a blatant dive, has won one championship thanks to the mother of all dives and has been gifted another league title because a ref fabricated a penalty out of thin air (it wasn't even a dive).

On balance, video replays would have thus cost me one party on the city square. Still, I'm all for at least giving the thing a try to see if and how we can get rid of the most glaring injustices. No matter if they are the result of a betting scheme or an honest mistake

 

[Hammoudi]

BTW, the article is from soccernet.com. I liked the guy's argument, and although I am a traditionalist, I am all for a technology that would improve soccer's status. I specially like his argument that I bolded, it was well put.

 

[Miki]

You do realize that once Adriano takes a free kick with this ball, the chip is destroyed? So, what's the point?

Ciao,
Tim

 

[snake]

Helal I don't what you are smoking but if we leave it to the umpires then we will keep having 10-20 bad decisions a test match. These decisions are ruining players careers. Its not fair and its not acceptable. Technology is a must in this day and age.

sounds like an anti-baggygreen person talking here

 

[Tommi]

You do realize that once Adriano takes a free kick with this ball, the chip is destroyed? So, what's the point?

No no no...

The chip isn´t in the players wall you know.

 

[Sisenando]

Technology destroys the game's unpredictability and thus make a mockery of the referees, telling them they are not doing their job properly. This room for error in football is what makes it so popular and interesting. The controversies surrounding the game provide food for thought as well as provide an income for sports columnists all over the world. I am against technology for the improvement of the game 100 % as it will destroy the most important part of soccer, the entertainment.

 

[Handoyo]

Yeah well, maybe you haven't had enough of Milan's and Juve's cheating.


Handyo

 

[Sisenando]

Well, Juve and Milan are not football teams. They are an organisation formed to incite cruelty to the football league. I see Milan and Juve as the terrorists of modern day football... THEY are TERRORISTS I TELL YOU!!! BLOODY TERRORISTS! Terrorising Serie A with their underworld connections with the government.. :scared:

 

[scutzon]

Well, Juve and Milan are not football teams. They are an organisation formed to incite cruelty to the football league. I see Milan and Juve as the terrorists of modern day football... THEY are TERRORISTS I TELL YOU!!! BLOODY TERRORISTS! Terrorising Serie A with their underworld connections with the government.. :scared:

:dielaugh: :dielaugh:

Hilarious stuff. But it's true...

 

[Hammoudi]

This one is for Hillal, he even said mate! He has a point about replay requests, it will be decided by the fourth ref.

From soccernet.com:

why can't a ref who's already getting acoustic signals from his linesman and who will soon be receiving beeps from a silly chip in the ball get in touch with an official who's got access to a TV screen?

And don't give me that argument about coaches who will be constantly demanding time-outs or replays: let the official in the stands decide when to alert his man on the pitch to a truly grave mistake. 'Hi, mate. Yeah, it's me. How's the family? Fine. Good, good, good. Cool game, isn't it? Oh, by the way: I don't think that bloke was really offside. I mean, actually he was onside by a country mile, so the guy who just ripped his shirt apart has something of a point. Do me a favour and allow that goal, will you? Ta, good boy. See ya!' Simple as that

 

[Frisko]

Hamed and Tim you cracked me up! :dielaugh: Great stuff guys!

I agree with Han, replays should be used. Just imagine if the ref could have watched a slo-motion of Zlatan headbutting Mihajlovic and Cordoba! And just imagine the roars of the fans, similar to when they show replays during boxing bouts!

I'd love that!

 

[Handoyo]

De Santis: I wanta see that smalt monitor. Gimme gimme.
*Sees monitor*
De Santis: Mamamia! Very bad hed butt. Eh, whata is thisa?
*Spots an envelope under the monitor*
De Santis: $$$. Signore Moggi, you hafe pulled da strings againt.


:finger::yuck:


Hand:frustrat:yo

 

[Frisko]

Nono, no monitors, the ref should just watch the mega screen.