Goal Line Technology in Football

[starstruck5]

I find it amazing that in 2012 we are still talking about introducing a new technology to determine whether the ball crosses the goal line or not -don't we already have technology called television -ok there might be very rare occasions when it is impossible to tell if the whole of the ball crosses the line  -but 999 out of a thousand a TV ref would give the correct decision -I can't understand why football is so resistant to using this resource to improve refereeing -if I was a ref I would love to be able to refer some things to the TV judge -and also if I was an Ukrainian I wouldn't be feeling so cheated right now -

[rachmaninoff_forever]

American football, or other countries football?

I think you mean the other countries football (soccer) right?

[j_menz]

American football, or other countries football?

I think you mean the other countries football (soccer) right?

LOL, only an American could ask that question. 

[austinarg]

If football wasn't the most popular sport in the world, these technological improvements would have been used a long time ago. You forget that if more technology is involved in a sport, there are less opportunities for tampering with the game in favour of a certain competitor. Corruption in football far surpasses any other sport.

[pianoplunker]

I find it amazing that in 2012 we are still talking about introducing a new technology to determine whether the ball crosses the goal line or not -don't we already have technology called television -ok there might be very rare occasions when it is impossible to tell if the whole of the ball crosses the line  -but 999 out of a thousand a TV ref would give the correct decision -I can't understand why football is so resistant to using this resource to improve refereeing -if I was a ref I would love to be able to refer some things to the TV judge -and also if I was an Ukrainian I wouldn't be feeling so cheated right now -

As an American Football fan I have found technology can work against your wishes sometimes. I would rather go for the call of  "SCORE" by a ref rather than "After further Review, NOT a SCORE" - if I was wanting my team to score

[j_menz]

I would rather go for the call of  "SCORE" by a ref rather than "After further Review, NOT a SCORE" - if I was wanting my team to score

If you were wanting your team to score, I'd suggest the call of "NO SCORE" by the ref followed by "After Further Review, SCORE" just as satisfying.

[p2u_]

If football wasn't the most popular sport in the world, these technological improvements would have been used a long time ago. You forget that if more technology is involved in a sport, there are less opportunities for tampering with the game in favour of a certain competitor. Corruption in football far surpasses any other sport.

Besides, I'm not much of a programmer, but I think it will take me no more than three minutes to write a Rootkit Trojan on my knees that makes such a system show the wrong information. This may also be a factor of why they hestitate to introduce such technology.

Paul

[pytheamateur]

The analogy here would be the use of technology in piano competitions.  Although major competitions are usually recorded, I wonder to what extent judges watch those videos when deliberating.

[p2u_]

The analogy here would be the use of technology in piano competitions.  Although major competitions are usually recorded, I wonder to what extent judges watch those videos when deliberating.

I don't think this analogy holds, because in piano competitions, you usually hear the "Moonlight factor" in the winner immediately, you mark him with a 10 and the rest gets 0 (other marks are usually given strictly formally); no further thought and no use watching the videos; technology cannot catch what makes a winner anyway.

Paul

[pianoplunker]

If you were wanting your team to score, I'd suggest the call of "NO SCORE" by the ref followed by "After Further Review, SCORE" just as satisfying.

Actually it is more satisfying to get it that way ! Sheer contrast of sadness followed suddenly by joy. IF it happens like that all the time then great .

[pytheamateur]

I don't think this analogy holds, because in piano competitions, you usually hear the "Moonlight factor" in the winner immediately, you mark him with a 10 and the rest gets 0 (other marks are usually given strictly formally); no further thought and no use watching the videos; technology cannot catch what makes a winner anyway.

Yes, that's true if you have a clear winner from the start.  It won't be so clear cut if you have to award many prizes.  Take the Chopin competition in Warsaw for example.  In the 2010 edition, the jury used a very complex scoring system.  Apparently, initially each judge scored each performance individually.  When deciding the prizewinners, the jury took hours to deliberate.  If you have so many eminent pianists (including strong characters like Argerich) discussing something so subjective as piano music, I don't see how they could come to any meaningful agreement between themselves without detailed reference to the players' performance.  Given that in the course of the competition, each contestant would have played for hours, spread over a period of weeks (i.e. much longer than a football match), it is hardly conceivable that the jury could have remembered every relevant detail.

Also bear in mind that the jury often makes very minute distinctions between contestants.  For example, in 2005, the Chopin jury decided to award one 1st prize, no 2nd prize, two 3rd prizes, two 4th prizes, no 5th prize, and one 6th prize.  They must be supermen
to be able to do that without refreshing their memory of contestants' performances.

[p2u_]

Apparently, initially each judge scored each performance individually.  When deciding the prizewinners, the jury took hours to deliberate.

Are you sure? I thought that in the finales there was no discussion at all, and that each jury member just gave his/her score without even telling the others why. I'll have to check that, but I believe it was Adam Harasiewicz who said that in an interview for the Polish radio.

Paul

[pytheamateur]

Are you sure? I thought that in the finales there was no discussion at all, and that each jury member just gave his/her score without even telling the others why. I'll have to check that, but I believe it was Adam Harasiewicz who said that in an interview for the Polish radio.

Paul

Yes, please check that if you could.  I was following the competition then.  The judges decided to change the scoring system in the final rounds at the last minute.  I heard this had something to do with the popular contestant Evgeny Bozhanov, who ended up 4th place.  Apparently, he would have done better if they stuck to the original system, but the judges didn't want that, maybe due to the fact that he messed up a little in his concerto performance.  Anyway, Bozhanov thought this was unfair and declined the prize.

[p2u_]

Yes, please check that if you could.

OK. Unfortunately, I have trouble locating the original Polish sound file of the radio interview, but Mati [from Poland] on Piano World gives a good summary of what I think I heard:
Adam Harasiewicz on Chopin Competition 2010.

There was no discussion in the final voting, each jury member just presented his final ranking without explanation ‘why’.

Paul