So,can we do it or not?

[Mad Dog]

Whilst I'm not happy it has happened in this game, I'm glad that we've seen the best possible example to add to the argument to chip the ball (note no cameras, for those worried about slowing the game) and put sensors in the goal which set off a buzzer to deal with the ball going over the line. Finally it has recently happened in one of the biggest fixtures in football, in the biggest international tournement in football and could prove vital to the outcome of this game.

Sepp Blatter, what reasons can you come up with against bringing in the technology I've suggested?

[woody]

Yes we can!



(Image from fifa.com matchcast)

No we can't

WE ARE F***ing pants

OK - Don Fabio.................Time to take over at Liverpool. Surely your TICTACS made that possible

DID Rooney Number 10 get on the plane????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Mad Dog]

No we can't

WE ARE F***ing pants

OK - Don Fabio.................Time to take over at Liverpool. Surely your TICTACS made that possible

DID Rooney Number 10 get on the plane????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

So WTF will sacking Capello achieve?

Note:

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranki ... nking.html

[PhilM2]

Watched the game with a bunch of Portuguese guys, they were rooting for England, but sadly dissapointed by the England performance. Shocked by the dissallowed goal ofcourse. It makes a mockery of the game when all the world see the damned ball bounce well inside the goal, but none of the officials can see it.

The country of my birth are out, my home country is out, that leaves me with my friend's team, PORTUGAL. Shame they're up against Spain for the first knock out, that's going to be quite a game.

[Mad Dog]

And we have ANOTHER contentious goal decision, this time Argentina and Mexico!

Blatter's position on technology is starting to looky shaky.

[Dazzler]

[jimbobjaw]

And we have ANOTHER contentious goal decision, this time Argentina and Mexico

That situation was made much much worse by the decision being shown on the big screen, which in my view turned a poor decision into a farcial situation where everyone including the officials knew that the decision was w3rong, but no-one was able to do anything about it! SHOCKING

[jimbobjaw]

Whilst I'm not happy it has happened in this game, I'm glad that we've seen the best possible example to add to the argument to chip the ball (note no cameras, for those worried about slowing the game) and put sensors in the goal which set off a buzzer to deal with the ball going over the line. Finally it has recently happened in one of the biggest fixtures in football, in the biggest international tournement in football and could prove vital to the outcome of this game.

Sepp Blatter, what reasons can you come up with against bringing in the technology I've suggested?

There are two points on this I would like to raise. Firstly, I don't agree that using cameras would slow the game down anymore than the players surrounding the officials, as they do currently. The fourth official will be able to make a decision that SHOULD be good enough so that neither side could complain, and then the game would continue.

Secondly, on your suggestion about a buzzer, I'm not entirely sure how it would work practically. How does the buzzer go off when the ball crosses the line and not a player? I assume this would require a sensor in the ball, but how would this work, as the whole of the ball must cross the line. Will this add to the weight of the ball, which appear to be getting lighter? Will this hinder/help increased movement? What happens if it fails?

For me, technology has to be brought into football, as it is no longer just a game, but a billion pund business. Alas I don't think the answer is completely clear cut, but something must be done.

[Mad Dog]

There are two points on this I would like to raise. Firstly, I don't agree that using cameras would slow the game down anymore than the players surrounding the officials, as they do currently. The fourth official will be able to make a decision that SHOULD be good enough so that neither side could complain, and then the game would continue.

Secondly, on your suggestion about a buzzer, I'm not entirely sure how it would work practically. How does the buzzer go off when the ball crosses the line and not a player? I assume this would require a sensor in the ball, but how would this work, as the whole of the ball must cross the line. Will this add to the weight of the ball, which appear to be getting lighter? Will this hinder/help increased movement? What happens if it fails?

For me, technology has to be brought into football, as it is no longer just a game, but a billion pund business. Alas I don't think the answer is completely clear cut, but something must be done.

As I say, you microchip in the ball. This emits a signal that the sensors in the goal pick up when the ball fully crosses the line. The weight this will add is negligible. Remember that there is an arguement that the ball is too light as it is anyway.

Some links below on the whole thing, with mixed conclusions in some. The biggest problem is that it's been four years since it was last tested, despite showing promising results, so we don't know the current level of the tech. Also given FIFA's stance on any technology appearing in the game, we will probably never know:

http://www.engadget.com/2005/02/28/socc ... tive-refs/

http://sports.tmcnet.com/equipment/arti ... antage.htm

http://www.eufootball.biz/Technology/49 ... -FIFA.html

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/g ... chip_x.htm#

http://www.worldcup2010southafrica.com/ ... many-2006/

[Bob's Bitch]

To be honest the goal wouldn't have changed the game. So we would've gone into half time at 2-2, so what? We were still utter wank in defence, there would've been 2 possible outcomes:

a) We defend for our ****ing lives, a la Portugal 2006 in the hope of penalties (that we would've inevitably lost).

b) We would've carried on in the same vein of that first 35 minutes and the Germans would've continued to tear us apart at will. The passing for their 2nd goal wasn't a hot knife through butter it was a hot knife through ****ing air.

I wouldn't have liked to see either to be honest, because a) would be like watching Greece play, which is the most painful thing in the world. And b) would just be more depressing after getting some hope after equalising. I watched Argentina v Mexico afterwards and I thought to myself 'I'm glad that we didn't somehow beat Germany' because Argentina would've tore us to shreds and it would've been even more of an embarrassment than yesterday afternoon's game.

I don't think it was the fact that we had gone out that made me upset last night, I think it was the fact that we went out with a whimper. We obviously weren't going to win the tournament once we didn't win the group but Christ, if the players can't get pumped up for a knockout match at the World Cup then what chance do we have? I think we have to come to terms with the fact that 2nd Round/Quarter finals is the best we can really hope for and then try and build on that. Unfortunately the press will never accept this and we'll carry on being hamstrung by wildly exaggerated expectations.

Actually why the f*** do we bother with England anyway?! Most people don't give a toss for the year and a half when we're going through the qualifying tournament, so why does anyone give a f*** when we're actually at the Finals? Everyone knows we're not as good as Holland, Argentina, Germany, Brazil and Spain, so why do we get into a frenzy every 2 years just to become depressed when we do what, deep down, we know we're always going to do? The players clearly don't give a f*** so let's join them and not give a f*** as well and enjoy each tournament for the football and just forget about England.

Oh and for another view on the debacle here's Baddiel and Skinner's podcast recorded after the game. http://www.absoluteradio.co.uk/podcasts ... io-Podcast