Derby_Red
Well-known member
You get more clicks and faux controversy!
Curvature
- Thread starter FatCat
- Start date
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Rubbish. We have the best refs in the Premier League, not in League 2. So that is a 2 tier system already.
And why are we bothered? In the Championship we all get the same technology - why does it matter they use this in the WC?
And I'm very much against it.
dooderooni
Well-known member
Oh maybe because teams might miss out on promotions, cup runs and such like that could ultimately mean the difference between a club surviving or not, such is the gulf in finances in football.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
From Fifa
Also, the official World Cup match ball, the Adidas “Al Rihla,” will be fitted with a sensor that sends data 500 times a second. This means it can detect the exact moment the ball was played for the offside decision – far more accurate than the conventional camera frames (limited to 50 frames a second).
“We will implement in each World Cup stadium, 12 dedicated optical tracking cameras,” Holzmuller said. “All these cameras are working together, and 100 percent synchronised. In addition to that, the official match ball will have a connected ball technology. A new Adidas suspension system houses a 500 hertz IMU [inertial measurement unit] sensor in the centre of the ball.
How will Semi-Automated Offside Technology work?
At the moment, VAR can only use broadcast cameras to make offside decisions. But with semi-automated offside technology, cameras will be set up on the roof of the stadium. They will be able to track all 22 players to calculate their exact position on the pitch. There will be 29 data points on each player to cover all possible limbs and extremities that could be offside.Also, the official World Cup match ball, the Adidas “Al Rihla,” will be fitted with a sensor that sends data 500 times a second. This means it can detect the exact moment the ball was played for the offside decision – far more accurate than the conventional camera frames (limited to 50 frames a second).
“We will implement in each World Cup stadium, 12 dedicated optical tracking cameras,” Holzmuller said. “All these cameras are working together, and 100 percent synchronised. In addition to that, the official match ball will have a connected ball technology. A new Adidas suspension system houses a 500 hertz IMU [inertial measurement unit] sensor in the centre of the ball.
Derby_Red
Well-known member
The 3-dimensions point for football is worth emphasising as there's been loads of false arguments comparing to the tennis equivalent (Hawkeye) - the difference there is the tennis rule for in/out is based on contact with the grass, whereas for football it can be in/out in mid-air.
That's not even close to being true. The same officials might have called it differently half the time never mind other officials. There is no consistency anywhere near saying 100% of referees would have made the same decision. If you are claiming that 100% of referees would have made the same, incorrect, decision then that is further evidence that the problem is referee teams themselves and not the technology. The human eye at speed doesn't always get perspective right. Tennis implemented hawkeye years ago because of the way different players and officials saw things depending on where they were standing.
Obviously, it would be better if every match could use the best technology but the cost is prohibitive so for teams lower down the leagues while it might improve them they can't afford it. The same could be said for the state of their pitches and their training facilities. If you can afford, and the PL can, to reduce the amount of errors made then it makes sense to spend that money.
It is ok for rich people (or poor people) to avoid paying tax. Personally I pay into a pension, an ISA, slaary sacrifice a car, claim tax relief for working from home and for professional fees etc. to reduce the amount of tax I pay. We all avoid tax. The problem is that the loopholes in the system allow it, not with the individuals using them. That is on the government to tighten the laws, not the individuals. It is completely irrelevant to technology in football.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Such is life. If the League 2 clubs want to pay for it to help them get to the sunlit uplands of League 1 let them do it.
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
It’s doesn’t matter if they have technologyor not once you apply that the full has to cross the line for the goal then it has to apply to everything else.
Nano explained it quite with his plane explanation
That's exactly the same as having worse referees in L2 compared to the PL.
VAR costs about £3m for the PL per year but they have total revenue of £5.5bn so it is a drop in the ocean for them. The same costs (more probably because there are more stadiums and games) for League 2's total revenue of £100m is too big a cost to be worthwhile. They could do it if they wanted but they don't want to spend the money on it.
Rofesleg
Well-known member
It was all worth it to prove Ronaldo didn't touch that ball.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
And strangely enough, the further you go down the leagues, where the need to constantly cheat doesn't exist, the refs look to be having good games. No VAR, no TV interference, less pressure on refs to allow cheating.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
No we use hawk eye in this country it’s got nothing to do with tennis.
Huddersfield and English Football League receive apology from Hawk-Eye for goal-line technology failure
Huddersfields Yuta Nakayama was denied an equaliser in the Championship match against Blackpool after the technology failed to send a signal to the watch of referee John Busby to alert him to the ball crossing the line; the official and his assistants also failed to spot it had gone in
FatCat
Well-known member
That’s my point why do we have this inconsistency.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
That’s the point this var does not rely on rules if relies on data only.
That why they won’t produce an image as the decision was data based. The ball is a gps type ball told the system where it was that’s how the decision is made regardless of what it may look like.
Jonny Ingbar
Well-known member
The use of technology was inevitable, but like anything it evolves and improves over time and it is still relatively new to football.
It's great for matters of fact, but less beneficial for matters of opinion I think. If decisions are still being debated after the game has finished then I'm not sure if the technology has added value in that case?
It also brings into focus the current rules, such as offside - the current rule is simple enough, but given the accuracy of the data available, do any of us want to see a goal ruled off-side due to the length of a finger, or a kneecap. Thats not what the rule was intended to prevent, was it?
It's great for matters of fact, but less beneficial for matters of opinion I think. If decisions are still being debated after the game has finished then I'm not sure if the technology has added value in that case?
It also brings into focus the current rules, such as offside - the current rule is simple enough, but given the accuracy of the data available, do any of us want to see a goal ruled off-side due to the length of a finger, or a kneecap. Thats not what the rule was intended to prevent, was it?
