Could it work for League as well

[Berkeley_Eagle]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
From correspondents in Frankfurt
June 14, 2005

FIFA president Sepp Blatter has revealed the 2006 World Cup finals could see the introduction of electronic chips to determine once and for all whether the ball crosses the goal-line.

Blatter said that the idea of inserting a chip in the matchball will be tested and then reviewed.

"We will test the goal-line technology at the FIFA Under-17 world championships in Peru," he said.

"If it works then we could introduce the chipped ball for 2006.

"If it is not successful the referee and his assistants will have the responsibility."

Blatter said that an electronic chip appears the only way to determine whether the ball crosses the line, with television replays inconclusive.

"It is not set in stone that the chip will be used," he said. "But without the chip it is impossible to determine whether the ball has crossed the line.

"We found that out this season when Liverpool played Chelsea in the Champions League semi-final and no-one knew for certain whether it was a goal, despite 12 camera angles."

Liverpool midfielder Luis Garcia scored the decisive goal to defeat Chelsea 1-0 at Anfield in the Champions League semi-final, but countless replays could not determine whether the ball had actually crossed the line.

Despite being keen to introduce new technology, Blatter insists football still needs its talking points such as Geoff Hurst's controversial goal for England in the 1966 World Cup 4-2 final win over Germany.

"People still talk about the 1966 goal and that is what makes football interesting," he added.

"If we take discussions like that out of the game it will not be beneficial."


Interesting to see how it goes, as it could work in a rugby league ball as well[/font]

 

[Graf Vynda-k]

our game should adopt the american gridiron method and eliminate the touch down.

as soon as the ball breaks the plane of the goal line it's a try.........very simple, very easy to adjudicate on and no controversy.

 

[Striker]

I'd have to disagree mate, the act of actually getting the football onto the grass in some circumstances is the hardest part in the act of scoring a try.

 

[wittyfan]

I think we should get rid of all video referees.

 

[Twizzle]

What part of the ball will the chip be in, the ball can be on the line yet the chip can be in the field of play.

Aint gonna work with a RL ball.

 

[Lego_Man]

What part of the ball will the chip be in, the ball can be on the line yet the chip can be in the field of play.

Aint gonna work with a RL ball.

Exactly...and the ball could be found to be over the goal line by the chip, but you still wouldn't know if it was actually grounded if the camera angles didn't reveal it - eg if there was a defender with hand under the ball.

 

[Eskimo Sharkie]

I agree. We don't need it and working out whether there has been contact with the ground is more difficult for the technology than simply passing a certain point in three-dimensional space.

League's problem could be easily solved by taking away the "Ref's Call" option from the video ref's armoury and some clarification of the benefit of the doubt rule. The video ref has the best resources available to make the decision and should be forced to rule one way or the other. With the numerous camera angles, if there is doubt, the decision should benefit the attacking side.

 

[gaterooze]

I've said this before, but the Video ref needs better technology. He needs 3-4 separate screens which can show time-synched shots running concurrently. That way he can advance frame-by-frame and see it from every angle *at the same time*. None of this "go back to another view and run it again" crap. You need to triangulate/correlate the shots in direct comparison to make a better decision.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

I've said this before, but the Video ref needs better technology. He needs 3-4 separate screens which can show time-synched shots running concurrently. That way he can advance frame-by-frame and see it from every angle *at the same time*. None of this "go back to another view and run it again" crap. You need to triangulate/correlate the shots in direct comparison to make a better decision.

Bingo. I've always thought they should do that too.

 

[argy-bargy]

i read an article in new scientist (NNNEEEERRRRD) about a german company who have taken this concept a step further by inserting a chip inside each of the players 2 socks so they can instantly tell if a player is offside etc.
I recon this is another great innovation and cannot see why it hasnt been adopted into may sports.

 

[Nugby]

I don't think it could be made to work in Rugby League, although I maintain that Garcia scored, whether or not he did. I agree with Eskimo and gaterooze, there should just be better resources available to the Video Ref (and Mick Stone should have a time limit before he gets penalised $2,000)

 

[Surely]

If the ref cant see the ball being grounded because his view is obscured by players, then shouldn't the benifit of the doubt rule apply ?

 

[Misty Bee]

Until we have steel in-goals with an electric ball, which creates a circuit when they connect, causing a large "beep" sound to signify a try......

 

[ozjet1]

I'd have to disagree mate, the act of actually getting the football onto the grass in some circumstances is the hardest part in the act of scoring a try.

can somebody explain one thing to me as after 25 years of watching the game, i'm still confused about the grounding.

does the ball have to be grounded? or is the forearm hitting the ground sufficient for a try to be awarded. i've seen this happen on many occassions.