Goalline technology is getting closer

Finally.

Maybe a good thing, I'm still undecided.

I just hope this is the end of technology in football. I know it robs us occasionally but I don't want football to be an exact science.

I think technology will play a greater part in the future, especially video replay. Fellaini's goal against Newcastle, for instance, could have been verified as legit in seconds and relayed to the ref's earpiece.

It's not the technology that's the problem, it's the idea that the ref's decision is sacrosanct and irreversible. Why? They make mistakes. Sometimes through incompetence/ favouritism, sometimes not. The bottom line is they make mistakes. We've lost, what, four points so far through ref's mistakes.

After a contentious call why can't they just hold off making a decision until after receiving confirmation, as they do when consulting the linesman? And by confirmation I mean someone in their earpiece - "No, Fellaini was onside. Goal stands", "Yes, Saurez dived. Red card".

Long overdue. The current crop of officials seem to be seriously lacking in eyesight despite the so-called testing that they take. Their missed calls over the last few years have cost teams points and that can convert into financial loss.

The yahoos running Fifa and the Premier League etc have been remiss in not introducing this technology sooner. They have been living in the dark ages, especially Blatter. Hopefully no time is wasted in getting it implemented.

Technology is needed and goal line technology is not enough. If a ref thinks there was a penalty he should blow the whistle and consult with video replay, like in Rugby. On TV we're watching the replay and can see whether it was a penalty or not after around 10-20 seconds. Meanwhile we have to watch the players argue with the ref for around a minute or more. The game would actually be sped up and the correct call would be made. And of course, if the player was found to have taken a dive, card him. Diving would be wiped out, or at least it's value would be.

The same goes for any red card decision. If the official thinks it's a red he asks the video replay and they review the play, the decision is made. Rodwell would not have been sent off in the derby last year, Pienaar would not have been sent off this past weekend. Not everything will be caught, but a hell of a lot more would. The officials would be more prone to whistle initially for what looks like a penalty because they know they can take a look. And with players knowing their dive will be reviewed, chances are the penalty claims under review would either be penalties or clean tackles. Either way, video will show the truth. And why not just review every goal while the players are running around celebrating for a minute of more? Blatant hand ball goals would be eliminated.

I'm all in favour of technology that informs the ref if the ball has crossed the goal-line. The ref can then stop the game, knowing the ball has left the field of play. If no laws have been infringed then a goal can be awarded. However, I'm loathe for the ref to have access to video technology for incidents during the game as this would distort the game due to play being stopped for an incident at one end of the pitch where play should have been allowed to continue & there may possibly have then been a goal scoring opportunity at the other end. Mind you, I think there's a case for video evidenc to be used to retrospectively punish players who cheat & dive & commit the worst acts of violence - draconian punishments for both player & club would help to change attitudes & behaviour.

I think part of the problem is the referees don't seem to use/trust their assistants enough. Too many times an incident happens right under the nose of the assistant, but he will still take his lead from the referee. I used to think it was because they were incompetent, but I found out that some refs really want to make all the calls, and just use the lino for the offside and throws.

Football has always had its "characters" as referees, but it seems that going professional has seen some of them want the spotlight as much as the players we pay to watch.

Whilst this technology should help, I can imagine the referees themselves resisting any extension to things like offsides, dives etc.

It is simply not enough. We are a mere eight games into the season - not even a quarter of the way - and out of a possible 24 points we have lost 2 and a player (thereby potentially another 2, plus that player's suspension impact on the Merseyside Derby potentially costing us further) all through poor officiating.

Goal line technology would have redeemed our tally of just two of those points and would have made no impact on anything else like Pienaar's second yellow card at the weekend.

I have always said there is a simple solution that some professional voices are starting to add to the argument in favour of. Hawk Eye (video referencing) is used very successfully in both tennis & cricket so it could easily translate to football with the same parameters.

Each manager has two objections per half. If their objection stands upon video review their tally remains but if it is disproven they are down one. Once they have used all available we are back to where we are for the full 90 minutes of every game at the moment - i.e. tough, the referee's decision is final and you shouldn't have wasted your opportunities.

This would offer a maximum of eight video checks per game. That may sound a lot but as has already been said it would not unduly delay anything and would improve the game. Sadly, it is seemingly not in the interests of the footballing hierarchy, particularly UEFA, who would rather employ more officials on touchlines to be nothing more than mannequins as I have yet to see a solitary one of them influence a decision where they miss untold amounts, despite being stood on the edge of the 18 yard box.

Correction, I said we have lost two of the possible twenty-four points when I meant we have lost a minimum of four

I have been thinking about all this for years now. Here is my manifesto for the game:

1. Timekeeping basketball style, ie, ball out of play – clock stopped;

2. Sin bins for yellow cards, 10-15 mins by the game clock, and player released exactly on time;

3. Both managers given the right to ask for video evidence over a certain amount of incidents of their choice per game;

4. Fully automated goal-line, touch-line, and offside decisions.

These are a must in my opinion, as it would level the playing field and be more entertaining with all the added drama of awaiting important decisions, knowing exactly how much time is left, plus with the sin bin scenario you could have periods of play with various amounts of players on the pitch at any one time.

Neil, have you ever seen the $ky stats on games?. Ball in play is usually between 35-50 mins at most. The game would last about three hours "in play".

Sin Bins?????? there simply isn't enough swear words for this suggestion.

Video Evidence challenges?? Only if the ball is out of play immediately following the controversial incident, but what stops a manager abusing the challenges to break up play when a team is on top? - daft idea

Goal line technology, the only sensible suggestion and it will not affect the game in any way, as soon as the ball is over the line, the ref's bollocks get an electric shock, or some other method confirming it was over and a goal is given. Simple as.

Goal technology is ok, sure. But anything else won't work...

If you have a video reply for penalties what about non-penalties, free-kicks, throw-in etc....continually break the passage of play until the video has been watched.

Mistakes happen, it's part of the fun, part of the banter. Football is entertainment, not science. So what if sometimes it's 'unfair', it's entertainment. Besides, Jelavic handballs then scores... don't see many complaining about that 'mistake'. Ben Arfa was through on goal, again this is swiped aside as unimportant.

What about fouls off the ball, Tim Cahill was great at this... etc etc etc.

The goal-line technology is way overdue. All the other problems can be cut down by employing two referees each game instead of the one. Much of what is referred to as incompetence is simply the ref being too far away from where the ball is.

These relics who run UEFA have to go.

Call me Mr Contrary, but I can't stand all of this kerfuffle about goalline technology.

Encapsulate everything I hate about modern football - the endless wittering about refereeing decisionx and 'incidents', Skysports News and Talksports going on and on and on as though a ball hitting a line of paint has some sort of equivalence with the bleeding situation in Syria.

Ghe thing I love about professional football is that it is the same game I play in the park but played to a far higher level.. So the odd decision is wrong - so what.

Steve - Not regarding goals, though. Scoring is the point of the game. Technology won't be a benefit for the rest until UEFA adds the 2nd referee on the pitch. Will eliminate many "mistakes" refs make because the one ref we have now must maintain some central position on the pitch or collapse in exhaustion before the first half ends. So he misses calls because he's too far away.

The game's too fast and no referee is close an athlete as the players he's officiating. That's where the worst of calls come from. One man can't keep up.

We've seen in tennis and NRL (Australia) the line technology is very precise. It will confirm goals scored, but be prepared for many goals being disallowed because 1mm of the ball hasn't crossed all of the line!

Then it's not a goal Keith, them's the rules.....all of the ball over all of the line.

Steve #152 makes a very good point & it's the one that FIFA have always used as a reason not to adopt the available technology - the universality of the game. As Steve says it's the same game seen in any park around the globe. However, I think an exception can be made for goal-line technology as it only tells the ref that the whole of the ball has crossed the goal-line & has therefore left the field of play, the same as an eagle-eyed linesman would do if correctly positioned, so the decisions re goals or other infringements still remain with the referee. The idea of introducing more intrusive technology that could interrupt & thereby distort the game would lead to the evolution of a quite different game to that which we see at all levels now.

The only way I'd like to see video technology used is to retrospectively clamp down on the worst excesses of fouling, diving & other forms of cheating. Perhaps allowing managers, or perhaps the officials themselves, to cite particular players or incidents for retrospective review. So long as this was accompanied by suitably severe punishments to both player & club it could help to curb the most extreme behaviour.