Registered: Oct 2002 Posts: 67295 - Threads: 1526 Location: I slink therefore I am.
2012
Winner Member
Quote:
Darz wrote on 28-06-2010 12:48 AM
I still wouldn't want goal line technology even after today. England didn't go out of the WC because of that one decision, it's because they were shite.
That's not the point I'm making though.
We all know England had one of the worst World Cup tournaments ever in terms of skill, attitude and results.
The point I'm making is that a howlingly poor decision has once again marred a flagship event.
Somehow we drifted off too far, communicate like distant stars
Splintered voices down the 'phone. The sunlit dust, the smell of roses drifts, oh no.
Someone waits behind the door. Hiroshima mon amour
Registered: Sep 2004 Posts: 7002 - Threads: 271 Location: Hiding from people waiting for week to end
It's an insane 'system'
I don't watch football normally and was gobsmacked that you can't appeal obviously wrong decisions. How are fans meant to know if the referee is being fair or not?
Possibly. But England were shite for the whole of the first half bar about 3 minutes prior to that incident also.
This is true but going in at half time having pulled 2 goals back would have given them a huge psychological advantage. It is brief moments that change games and not always the best team that win.
Registered: Jul 2007 Posts: 21298 - Threads: 828 Location: I bear therefore I am
2012
Honourable Mention Party Animal
Quote:
Latex Zebra wrote on 28-06-2010 09:01 AM
You have to say that two goals in the space of a minute would have scared the shit out of the Germans. Who knows what could have happened.
We where still shit though and they missed several other oppurtunities. As many have said we got lucky it was only 4.
I was hoping for 6-1 so I could say not even Australia got beaten by that much.
I will hang on to the thought that Australia drew with Ghana who beat the USA who were better than England. So essentially Australia have a better football team than England.
I just learnt how to give myself a signature - 27/08/09 - bear (member for just over 2 years)
I just learnt that F5 refreshes a page - 03/03/10 - bear (alive for over 30 years)
Registered: Oct 2002 Posts: 67295 - Threads: 1526 Location: I slink therefore I am.
2012
Winner Member
Quote:
Latex Zebra wrote on 28-06-2010 09:01 AM
You have to say that two goals in the space of a minute would have scared the s**t out of the Germans. Who knows what could have happened.
We where still s**t though and they missed several other oppurtunities. As many have said we got lucky it was only 4.
Agreed on that.
Somehow we drifted off too far, communicate like distant stars
Splintered voices down the 'phone. The sunlit dust, the smell of roses drifts, oh no.
Someone waits behind the door. Hiroshima mon amour
Registered: Oct 2002 Posts: 67295 - Threads: 1526 Location: I slink therefore I am.
2012
Winner Member
Quote:
SiameseJesus wrote on 28-06-2010 09:10 AM
Didn't Midas put £500 on England to win? Lol!!
Haha!
As long as it's just money, not his beloved gold!
Somehow we drifted off too far, communicate like distant stars
Splintered voices down the 'phone. The sunlit dust, the smell of roses drifts, oh no.
Someone waits behind the door. Hiroshima mon amour
Chip in the ball technology does exist. Ironically it was developed by a German company. How it works is that a low magnetic field flows through the goal, when the ball crosses the line the chip sends a message to a watch worn on the referees wrist.
Whilst I will always be against technology being used in a manner which would stop the flow of the game I don't see any negatives in employing this type of technology.
The cost issue doesn't hold water if it were to be made compulsory only for major leagues and tournaments.
Registered: Dec 2002 Posts: 41886 - Threads: 1671 Location: London
Quote:
Coops wrote on 27-06-2010 10:37 PM
I'm still not in favor of the game being stopped whilst the ref looks at video replays or an appeal system as this would spoil the flow of the game and be abused by teams using it to gain an advantage.
As I've said to you before, there'd obviously be a system where you can only challenge certain things/a certain amount of times.
It's silly to throw the idea out due to scaremongering about what may happen.
http://www.myspace.com/ThisIsPhase2 “It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” - Carl Sagan
As I've said to you before, there'd obviously be a system where you can only challenge certain things/a certain amount of times.
It's silly to throw the idea out due to scaremongering about what may happen.
Football is a game that should flow quickly so I am naturally against anything that would harm this and stopping the game while the ref looks at video replays would definitely do this. I would rather put up with the odd bad decision than have the game interrupted.
Players would also use this to their advantage, appealing decisions to get the game stopped in order to regroup or ease pressure.
The only way I would be happy to see video technology being used would be to have a 5th official watching screens in a dug out and giving instant opinions to the referee in the same way the other officials do at present. It wont totally eradicate mistakes but at least it wouldn't stop the flow of the game or give players the chance to use the technology to gain an unfair advantage.
BTW: please stop accusing everybody who disagrees with you as being silly or stupid, it does nothing to bolster your argument and makes you come across as being a bit of a twat.
![[HarderFaster] - Work Hard, Play Harder!](/images/mainbanner_top1.gif)
28-06-2010 08:32 AM
