FIFA approves goal-line technology for 2014 World Cup
28 replies, posted
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/r2l4.jpg[/img]
[I]Official Fifa concept art[/I]
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/feb/19/goalline-technology-fifa-world-cup-brazil[/url]
[quote]Fifa has announced that goalline technology will be used during the 2014 World Cup after inviting providers of the software to submit official bids ahead of this summer's Confederations Cup.
Goalline technology was tested at the Club World Cup in December after the Fifa president, Sepp Blatter, stated his commitment to having a system in place by the time of Brazil 2014.
The two goalline systems that have already been approved by Fifa are Hawk-Eye and GoalRef, which are intended to help the referee make a decision if there is any doubt whether the ball has crossed the line for a goal. Hawk-Eye, which has already been used with great success in professional cricket and tennis, involves the use of a number of cameras, while GoalRef uses a magnetic field around the goal and an electronic circuit in the ball. Other providers have also been invited to tender their bids.[/quote]
I think I speak for us all when I say: FUCKING FINALLY.
Hawk Eye is amazing accurate in Tennis.
[QUOTE=zombojoe;39693243]Hawk Eye is amazing accurate in Tennis.[/QUOTE]
For anyone with doubts, here's an example.
[video=youtube;v0Ws7-1K8dc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0Ws7-1K8dc[/video]
0:20
My bro codes for hawkeye
Maybe sometime they'll do something reasonable like clock-stopping and video refs like in rugby.
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;39693586]Maybe sometime they'll do something reasonable like clock-stopping and video refs like in rugby.[/QUOTE]
Nah. All of this is done for drama. Football wouldn't have been such an interesting sport if there were no mistakes. IMO it's better that way. But I still insist on video tech for goals - it's one thing to nudge the outcome and a whole other thing to radically change it.
I like the tech they use in Cricket for 3rd Ump
Hawkeye as well as thermal imaging to see if the ball has made contact with the bat. They also replay sound to see if they can hear contact too.
I don't see how this new tech in football would affect it in a negative way, it's what's been needed for years.
I bet Lampards happy now
I wonder when they will stop all of the acting...
Football is, like, the most primitive sport out there. I mean, rather than doing this as soon as the technology was available, they simply decided to keep going with corrupt and seemingly blind referees. It's good that they are doing this at long last, but for me, the damage is already done.
[QUOTE=Manibogi;39694275]Football is, like, the most primitive sport out there. I mean, rather than doing this as soon as the technology was available, they simply decided to keep going with corrupt and seemingly blind referees. It's good that they are doing this at long last, but for me, the damage is already done.[/QUOTE]
Imo as said before, mistakes by referees or ruses played by players often make the game more fun and exciting (something that fans of other sports don't seem to understand, and I don't blame them). Same is the case with Baseball. I mean, I'd find it really boring to have all this tracking technology and shit and the game getting stopped every 5 minutes for extended periods of time over deciding whether it was a fault or not. Football is a fast-paced sport, and that's what makes it exciting.
Although for goals, I definitely agree that the FIFA should use tracking technologies.
Also, when will broadcasting companies use tracking systems to display radars like those in football videogames? That'd be THE SHIT.
[QUOTE=barttool;39694554]
Also, when will broadcasting companies use tracking systems to display radars like those in football videogames? That'd be THE SHIT.[/QUOTE]
That'd be horrible and would detract from the viewing experience, it would be glaringly distracting.
My flatmates will be very happy to know about this.
[QUOTE=barttool;39694554]Imo as said before, mistakes by referees or ruses played by players often make the game more fun and exciting (something that fans of other sports don't seem to understand, and I don't blame them). Same is the case with Baseball. I mean, I'd find it really boring to have all this tracking technology and shit and the game getting stopped every 5 minutes for extended periods of time over deciding whether it was a fault or not. Football is a fast-paced sport, and that's what makes it exciting.
Although for goals, I definitely agree that the FIFA should use tracking technologies.
Also, when will broadcasting companies use tracking systems to display radars like those in football videogames? That'd be THE SHIT.[/QUOTE]
Football a fast-paced sport?
lol okay
[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;39700812]Football a fast-paced sport?
lol okay[/QUOTE]
[quote][video=youtube;vZ_hzwnbWjg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ_hzwnbWjg[/video][/quote]
Yes, it is.
[QUOTE=Stopper;39700915]Yes, it is.[/QUOTE]
That's seven minutes of a good team's best plays; no shit it's going to look fast.
What about the majority of games which end up with less than two points on the board by half-time?
I'm not saying Football is bad or boring sport, but it isn't nearly as fast as, say, ice-hockey or basketball.
I'd way sooner watch a game of football than basketball though.
[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;39700941]That's seven minutes of a good team's best plays.
No shit it's going to look fast. What about the majority of games which end up with less than two points on the board by half-time?[/QUOTE]
What do points have to do with how fast paced a game is?
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39700965]What do points have to do with how fast paced a game is?[/QUOTE]
Scoring is an indicator of how quick a game is.
Yes, a no-scoring game can be fast-paced, but when a majority of games never make it past 3 points over the course of 90 minutes, it's clear that it [I]just might[/I] be slower than other sports.
[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;39700990]Scoring is an indicator of how quick a game is.
Yes, a no-scoring game can be fast-paced, but when a majority of games never make it past 3 points over the course of 90 minutes, it's clear that it [I]just might[/I] be slower than other sports.[/QUOTE]
Or it might just be harder to score, which means there are far more goal attempts without actual scoring which might even mean a faster paced game since you don't have to wait for the game to restart after a goal?
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;39701025]Or it might just be harder to score, which means there are far more goal attempts without actual scoring which might even mean a faster paced game since you don't have to wait for the game to restart after a goal?[/QUOTE]
Well, look at basketball.
There's no intermission between scores, yet they put many more points on the board than in football (even disregarding 1 basket = 2 points, ect.). Of course, in basketball, it's easier to score, but that's just it: you aren't going to see as much action if it's much more difficult to score.
I also know that basketball's court is also significantly smaller than football's. When you have a wide-open space, it's definitely going to take longer for things to happen.
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;39698878]That'd be horrible and would detract from the viewing experience, it would be glaringly distracting.[/QUOTE]
I don't mean show it all the time. But I think that in some cases when the ball is moving too fast (a counter-attack, or when someone sends a long pass) it would be nice to see where the players are standing, because everyone likes to play manager when they're watching football.
[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;39701086]Well, look at basketball.
There's no intermission between scores, yet they put many more points on the board than in football (even disregarding 1 basket = 2 points, ect.). Of course, in basketball, it's easier to score, but that's just it: you aren't going to see as much action if it's much more difficult to score.
I also know that basketball's court is also significantly smaller than football's. When you have a wide-open space, it's definitely going to take longer for things to happen.[/QUOTE]
I just can't agree with that. Once there's been scored, the action stops where's with football you get many more rebounds and counters where the action keeps on going. Basketball admittedly is a slightly different case because of the way the game restarts.
[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;39700941]That's seven minutes of a good team's best plays; no shit it's going to look fast.
What about the majority of games which end up with less than two points on the board by half-time?
I'm not saying Football is bad or boring sport, but it isn't nearly as fast as, say, ice-hockey or basketball.
I'd way sooner watch a game of football than basketball though.[/QUOTE]
Compare the size of a football pitch to the size of a Hockey rink or a Basketball court. The latter examples are significantly smaller than a football pitch and are therefore leave less space for players which therefore means faster paced games.
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;39701155]Compare the size of a football pitch to the size of a Hockey rink or a Basketball court. The latter examples are significantly smaller than a football pitch and are therefore leave less space for players which therefore means faster paced games.[/QUOTE]
That's what I'm saying?
I've been arguing that football is slower than other sports, and cited field size as a reason.
[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;39700812]Football a fast-paced sport?
lol okay[/QUOTE]
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60dcO003ZAQ[/MEDIA]
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZZigDtZvKg[/MEDIA]
[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;39700812]Football a fast-paced sport?
lol okay[/QUOTE]
Atleast it has a consistent pace, compared to some other sports...
See, all this discussion doesn't really matter as all other sports are inferior to hockey. Canada's gift to the world (That and Rush).
Why everyone else seems to ignore this gift is a mystery to me.
[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;39701086]Well, look at basketball.
There's no intermission between scores, yet they put many more points on the board than in football (even disregarding 1 basket = 2 points, ect.). Of course, in basketball, it's easier to score, but that's just it: you aren't going to see as much action if it's much more difficult to score.
I also know that basketball's court is also significantly smaller than football's. When you have a wide-open space, it's definitely going to take longer for things to happen.[/QUOTE]
Because the crowds get so excited when someone scores in basketball, oh wait. More goals and less stops doesn't mean better sport.
Over 4 billion people disagree with you, always be prepared to get showered in hate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.