|Jewell: Technology Can't Just Stop at Goal-Line|
Monday, 16th Apr 2012 17:43
Town boss Paul Jewell says that if goal-line technology is brought in he’d like to see other types of decision looked at in a similar manner. Yesterday’s goal that never was in the FA Cup semi-final between Chelsea and Spurs has led to renewed calls for technology to be used to indicate whether the ball has crossed the line with FIFA set to test two such systems later this month.
The International Football Association Board (IFAB), the body which approves changes to the game's laws, meets on July 2nd to decide whether either or both will be implemented. The FA, who are represented on the IFAB, backs its introduction, while UEFA is opposed.
Jewell, however, feels this doesn't go far enough : “What’s the difference between goal-line technology and an offside goal? You’ve got to get the right decision. That goal that Wigan conceded against Chelsea was what, two yards offside?
“The penalty that Ashley Young got against QPR, he was a yard offside. I don’t see the difference between those decisions and goal-line technology.”
The Blues manager points out that only introducing technology for goal-line decisions could lead to anomalies: “I go back to the Maradona situation in 1986. If we’d had goal-line technology then and it had hit the bar and gone over the line, the goal-line technology would have had to have given the goal, even though he handled it.
“I think they should give each side two calls a half, like they do in cricket and tennis. People say it’ll take too long but by the time the referee’s booked whoever he’s booking because they’re arguing because it’s not a penalty and cleared the 18-yard box, we could have made the decision.
“It’s a minute or longer before a penalty’s taken sometimes. It would stop us moaning if we could challenge referees in the right way, when we think that’s offside, for example.
"You can’t go back and watch a video and then challenge it. But Roberto Martinez could have said last week ‘I think that goal’s offside’. It wouldn’t have stopped any play. They’d look at the video, make the right decision and the players are happy because they know they got the right decision and the crowd aren’t unhappy because they know the right decision’s been made.
“I think the referees would be happy with that because that takes the pressure off them. If you can’t decide by looking at the video, then go with the referee’s decision.”
He says the top flight could certainly afford to introduce his idea: “I don’t understand why we can’t give four queries a game for each team. Maybe it’s down to cost but the Premier League could do it because they’ve got as much money as anyone.”
|Play Football, Lose Weight|
Ipswich places available now. Save 50% of your registration fee by clicking here, and we'll donate £5 to Prostate Cancer UK.
Read more in our blog about how it works and how 95% of members lose weight.
Photo: Action Images
Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.
|northernblue added 18:04 - Apr 16|
Nah, no thanks. Not wanting to have game stopped every goal for 5 minutes before its awarded, or everytime the ball is in the area to see if handball
|itfc1981 added 18:04 - Apr 16|
Paul Jewell wants to slow our play down even more! Offsides?!?
|legoman added 18:16 - Apr 16|
Fair result = fair play = latest technology.
|Big_Foot_Blue added 18:22 - Apr 16|
If the technology is as quick as TV is currently or Hawkeye is in Tennis then I completely agree with PJ. I think goal lines and offsides are the only decisions that can realistically be decided quickly by TV, like the simple lines across the pitch on MOTD for offsides or the quick 3d 360 degree camera view on the fa cup show yesterday.
Leave the other decisions alone but goal lines and offsides should be just like PJ says, although maybe just 1 challenge a half... plus the option for the ref to check it whenever he wants if no teams have a challenge.
|Garv added 18:29 - Apr 16|
Maradona example is very good. There would be uproar!
Football is all about speed. It's surely the most fast paced sport there is? It's fine for Cricket or Tennis, even Rugby because all these have breaks every thirty seconds anyway, football does not. I think it would slow it all right down.
|jas0999 added 18:42 - Apr 16|
I tend to agree. Okay, there are incidents of 'goals' which weren't over the line and goals not given when the ball clearly was over the line. However, there are more dodgy penalty and off-side decisions in the game. Where do you draw the line? Stop the game every few minutes. No. Not good.
|bluepirate added 18:46 - Apr 16|
I've seen Golref "Goal Line Technology" in action at a coaching conference last year, it took a matter of seconds from the ball crossing the line to the system alerting the ref. Absolutely incredible, I was against slowing the game down until I saw it, now I am 100% behind the system. People who think it would slow the game down need to wake up and smell the 21st Century.
|buryblue77 added 19:03 - Apr 16|
We need some sort of video replay technology linked to challenges such as cricket and tennis as Jewell says, the problem is with all the angles, slow motion replays and media punditry nowadays is that any error becomes glaringly obvious straight away and shocking decisions such as Ashley Young's Penalty and Chelsea's goal are there for instant criticism straight away.
I wouldn't want to be a referee at any level, but it's easy for TV viewers with all the angles to see if a decision should stand or not, but as the game goes by referees have difficult decisions to make and often get it wrong. They should be given help as this debate is only going to rage on for years to come.
|stinkiusminkius added 19:33 - Apr 16|
Jas 0999 says "I tend to agree"
...effectively with PJ.
I have just fainted.
|arnold241 added 19:36 - Apr 16|
controversy in football is what makes it such a great game, introducing this tech will not slow the game down but instead will make make these incidents pretty boring. What will they talk about on motd?
|VanIsleBlue added 19:38 - Apr 16|
I agree with Jewell but only on goals...I don't like adopting anything they use in the NFL in the U.S but the coach throws a flag and the referee looks at a replay, it wouldn't take too long and the right descion is made. that is waht we are all looking for- you could always show it to the crowd as well...job done (flags only allowed on goals and can only go back 30 seconds)
|TimmyH added 19:49 - Apr 16|
Video technology for the goal line and that is it, but an extra assistant referee (as per Champions league) behind the by-line for penalty decisions. Simple as that! Controversy does not make football a great game if it is amateurishly run with wrong decisions being made - oh what would Alan Hansen, Gary Lineker have to talk about I hear you cry - who cares! Lets get RIGHT decisions being made.
|arnold241 added 19:53 - Apr 16|
I'm afraid you're wrong, and if all the right decisions were made, it would be pretty dull to watch
|toforoge added 19:58 - Apr 16|
A lot of handballs and fouls are judgements by the ref and can be argued over for hours so you have to leave those decisions to them. With offside which is physicaly impossible to be accurate all the time (ever tried it when the ball is kicked from the same side of the pitch?) and goal line decisions which can be accuratly and quickly decieded may be. Do we realy want to see managers more involved in the game as pj suggests?
|alfromcol added 20:12 - Apr 16|
I believe that retrospective decisions should be taken against 'divers' in the box, even if the referee gets it wrong. ie if a player dives and the referee wrongly gives a penalty. If the cameras subsequently picks up a dive, the player should be banned for 1, 2, 3 or 4 games - whatever it takes to stamp out the majority of cheating.
|alfromcol added 20:13 - Apr 16|
controversy in football is what makes it such a great game,
????? A cheats charter!!
|8ashblue added 20:17 - Apr 16|
Its only taken 46 years for FA/FIFA to realise that the only way to produce a fair result is technologyfor major incidents. Their arguement has been that it evens out at end of season but this is patently isnt true. We now have so much at stake for teams that are promoted or relegated so not only should there be technology for the goal-line. we need it for all off-sides and penalty issues.
It would b so easy for linos to indicate that there's an offside but the ref would let it ride. If defence cleared then the game continues but if there is a goal then the 4th official (wjth little to do anyway!) would immediately say if player was offside or not. This way the players would have to accept that the game continues which would be great for the game as it would allow it to flow and ref wouldnt need to whistle so much. The linos would have support on marginal calls as would refs. On saturday the correct decission would have been made in an instant so very little time would have beeen lost.
|rosseden added 20:17 - Apr 16|
have all video feeds into a 4th official, same as rugby, only use it for the big decisions, ie red card, goal scoring incident, penalty, etc, then use goal line tech for the goal line stuff..... did it or didnt it cross the line etc.
What would the cost be, maybe £50k per club, cant see why we wouldnt have it in this day and age......
|Langdon_Blue added 20:31 - Apr 16|
@stinkiusminkius - I think the technology in the game that Jewell requests beyond just goal line technology, has already been installed on TWTD. Either a clever programme is now running or Jas0999 has managed a post without use of the phrases 'laughable' 'disgraceful' or 'lack of progress'. Well done Jas, it is a refreshing change of tune :-) Don't you feel better for it?
|Langdon_Blue added 20:39 - Apr 16|
Personally, I think it should just be goal line technology. When it comes to fouls / diving etc it would slow the game down and besides, how often do the studio pundits disagree with each other on what way the decision should have gone....even after watching it from different angles. Who would have the final say?? Would the managers then want to appeal that decision, if it was unclear....the car park behind KFC costs enough already, without having to top up for all these stoppages, thank you very much!
|jas0999 added 20:42 - Apr 16|
Langdon_Blue & stinkiusminkius:
As I have said before - if you don't like my posts, don't read them! I am afraid I don't think we have made progress under PJ (league position and points backs that up). Also, I do 100% believe that his treatment of Hyam is disgraceful - a young lad who pretty much saved PJ's job, then dumped for no reason, whilst Bowyer continues to play. I also believe the contract situation at ITFC is laughable - two years running and the same mistakes?!
If you disagree then GREAT! That's what commenting is all about. Like you I will be at ITFC tomorrow supporing the TEAM 100%. I will continue to do so next season. I am sorry if you don't like it, but I don't think PJ is the man for this club - yet I sincerely hope he proves me wrong!
|Langdon_Blue added 20:46 - Apr 16|
Can someone tell me what Jas0999 comment was?? ha-ha-ha
|62WasBest added 20:53 - Apr 16|
Doesn't make any sense as PJ sees it. Either the technology is used or it is not. If the idea is to eliminate poor decisions it cannot be subject to challenges. What happens when a sides challenges are used up? Are further decisions acceptable then? It doesn't matter how much technology is employed, there will always be a bottomless pit of incidents to judge. Where will the critical annalysis end? Throw-ins, corners, goalkicks, fouls, off-the-ball matters? Each to varying degrees can have an impact on a game. Why can't people just accept that the referee's word is final - as it has always been. He/she may not always be correct but if its an honest decision that should be enough. The persistently incompetents would then be obvious and suitable action taken to help them improve.
|arnold241 added 20:53 - Apr 16|
goal line technology is boring
|brendanh added 23:33 - Apr 16|
The existing system is clearly broken and not fit for purpose. Goal-line tech is a no brainer, but I think PJ has a point with video-referrals too.
It is ridiculous that everyone in the world knows within 5-10 seconds when the ref's made a howler in a massive match, but nothing can be done. The only part I disagree with PJ is that it should be one referral per half rather than two (to prevent frivolous end-of-half appeals), and it should be on-field captains who decide whether to refer rather than managers (who would just be hooked up to a member of his staff who can quickly replay - a test of technical prowess rather than judgement).
Referrals will lead to a completely objective method of judging refereeing performance. The more overturned decisions, the worse the ref. There are too many bad refs officiating top-class games because ref's ratings submitted each match by the two teams are biased and not a true reflection of their performance.
I see the same old argument has been wheeled out here as usual: "but we love the controversy!" Bottom line: I watch football for the skill of the players, not so I can talk about referees. To these ref-fetishists: teams will waste their "life" and then be subject the existing system's injustices, so you can still have a good old moan if that's what floats your boat.
You need to login in order to post your comments
Blogs 264 bloggers
Ipswich Town Polls