Use of goal line technology in football is overdue, and can only lead to benefits.
Surely anything that will lead to fair decisions, help the decision-makers, and stop doubts and controversy has to be a good thing? It works in other sports. Ok, that's not what football officialdom thinks, but what do they know? Cost arguments? Slow down the game arguments? Technology not reliable arguments? Or do they have something else to lose? Discuss ...07403338581 - call this number for sex
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
The benefits far outweigh the costs of not using the technology
If you lose the game due to a dodgy decision, and the whole world sees it, is this right? Justice must be served.
Technology is ready and available and proven to be robust
Tests have shown it can work, and so why aren't we using it?
The benefits far outweigh the costs
Goals are the ultimate measure of success in Top Class football competitions.
If it is a Top Class game then it will be covered by a TV/media production company. They can provide the robust technology as part of their contract with whichever football authority negotiated the match coverage. The production company can make a monitor available to the match officials for replay of 'ball over the goal line' incidents only. This solution will provide the Benefit at no/little extra cost to the football authority/club.
If the game is not important enough to be of interest to the media then it is not a Top Class game by default and the match officials continue as before without the technology.
Outside of Top Class football, debates about referees decisions are part of the unique culture of football for both players and supporters alike.
Technology for the human judgement
Due to the fact that football is a continuous game, where the human judgement is the main principal in the arbitrage of the game, the technology implemented should keep this line of work.
First, the goal line technology, after quite a few incidents in the last World Cup, needs to be implemented but not as automatic as we normally think this would work. GLT should be used when a team doubts about the referee's decision on a goal score, like the challenges used in tennis where each player has a limited number of challenges they can use through the whole game, this way opens the possibility for a team to appeal the referee's decision, that through all football history has been quite off during all types of matches either a World Cup final or league game.
Second, about using instant replay. Instant replay goes entirely against FIFA's ethics we could say. The only way a referee could use the TV viewer's point of view, is to create a new secondary referee that is watching the game from a TV broadcast that doesn't display replays but gives a birds view of the field allowing a better judgement on offside plays for example, or fights between players.
It is time for FIFA to reconsider the use of technology in the game given the number of disagreements on referees decision that teams and fans have constantly every season. Of course this technology can't be used in all the globe, for all the reasons we know, but professional football clubs and national federations have the resources to install the equipment and never again complain about how the game could have resulted if the referee had not failed in his decision.
Technology and innovation WILL change football completely . . . for the better, Just like it always has and will
No where in the rules of Fifa does it state that referees cannot use the influence of technology. Fifa rule book (2009) article 72 states that 1. During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee and 2. These decisions are final. This is why currently a referee uses; his own judgement, two assistant referees (introduced in 1891, 28 years after the rules of association football were coined), a fourth official (introduced in 1991, 128 years after the rules of association football were coined), the recently introduced two additional assistant referees (fair enough its only in European games but that only brings the universality question into play thats a different point) and an earpiece linked to the two assistant refs and fourth official (introduced in 2006, which to me sounds a little bit like technology). Add that with the fact that Sepp Blatter himself has introduced many new technologies to assist him in doing the best job as president of Fifa. Or even the introduction of the offside rule which did completely change the way football is played so much so that the records had to be wiped.
Going against GPS/RFID technology to track the players for offsides and the ball for going out of play/over the goal line, or even hawkeye goal line technology at the least, is going directly against the continuity of football and that desire to innovate and improve evidently resonating throughout its history.
P.S. taking bad decisions into account is illogical as they have always existed and will always exist, its called human error. Taking human error and exchanging it with the the much, much less frequent computer error will not change a thing. It will only decrease the frequency of bad calls occuring but again this is in the spirit of the game.
Football Shouldn't Feel So Threatened To Create Transparency In The Codification Of The Game
It has been a question that has been rife and top of the agenda doing the rounds on football forums and also top of the agenda throughout the structure of the sport.Should there or should there not be further technology to enhance the Laws of the game? it is a question in which most top league clubs are asking in the wake of many incidents which have gone unnoticed which have cost different clubs points and alot of money.There are other questions which arise when thinking about the effects of these decisions and incidents such as what effect is this having on the reputation of referees and the relationship between player and referee but also the relationship between the wider public and community towards officials.
The reason i say that these decisions being made turns the public on the officials is because the fans have such a strong relation to their clubs their they cannot accept a decision which is deemed preposterous against their clubs, instead they see it as a controversy affecting the bond between fan and their club.The fans wont blame anyone else other than the referee at fault even if that referee had just reason to give a decision considering his position on the field and the parameters in which the decision was taken.This often erupts in foul mouth slurs and talk of cheating and that match officials are against their clubs.Now if you put this into the context of the position of the fan and especially the young fans who hear those foul-mouthed assaults it can create a wider issue in the footballing community at amateur level as young players from youth teams start to disrespect referees and a bore referees and their decisions due to the culture that has been handed to them from their role models and the relationship of their role models with the officials for example if a 11 yr old playing youth football constantly hears the effects of the strained relationship and lack of respect for referees such as insults and talk of controversy from his/her parents their friends,their leaders, and from watching footballers consistently having a lack of discipline for match officials then how can we expect any different behaviour from the 11 yr old on the field of play for his/her team? can we expect any different from a generation who has been plagued by their role models in the sport for so long? I don’t think that can be changed in a hurry but we can do things to slow down that process and help the referees regain a stronger relationship with the players and the wider football fan community in the sport.The way this can and should be done is through technology.
“We don’t want a repeat of last World Cup … I think I can convince the International Football Association Board board that we must go forward with technology.”, Blatter says he does not want to be at “a World Cup and witness another situation [like the Lampard one]. I would die.”
Sepp Blatter speaking (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/mar/02/sepp-blatter-ifab-goalline-technology
Football wouldn’t be the first sport to take away the big decisions from the on field referees in fact they would be among a long line of sports who have successfully adopted a technological approach to officiating with limited or no after effects or damage to the reputation of their respected sports.Tennis have the Net Cord Sensor which uses Vibrations which turn into Electrical energy which is called the Piezoelectrical Device and the Hawk Eye which uses four high-speed cameras to detect the map of the flight path of the ball to determine whether points should be given or not, the same system is used in Cricket and have been hugely successful.The most successful in my opinion is in Rugby.The Hawk eye has been inspirational with ensuring the sport stays honourable to the codification of the sport ensuring balanced and fair competition.
We can do it, the football world wants it and yet it is still being thwarted, that is unacceptable,” said Tijs Tummers, secretary of FIFPro’s technical committee.
The one thing these sports have in common is that the officiating sectors command the highest of respect from the sports coaches players and their wider sporting community , it is more accepted that their decision is final and whatever decision that may be must be the correct decision.By taking the hardest of the decisions out of the referees hands and looking at evidence can have an impact on the way people view referees and the way that we as a community share that relationship with officials in a culture in which Countering everything has become common place.If we look at events in football and certain situations for example , Barcelona FC , when they play the game and they start to struggle it is obvious to anyone watching the game that they start to try to sway referees decisions and bully the referee into the decisions he makes, how many times have you seen a referee with 10 Barcelona players shouting around him after somebody blew on one of their players and that player doing his latest drama routine ? they only disrespectfully behave like that because it is one man solely having the responsibility to make that huge and crucial decision and they have learned through cultural experience that putting one person under that pressure can benefit them, So why can’t we take those decisions away ? if it isn’t then down to one person and the “buck” is passed to a team of officiators watching evidence surely that sort of behaviour can be nullified. A referee could then book any player that is deemed to abuse him/her and show that there is consequences for appalling behaviour on the field and maybe just maybe we will start to get back to a level where more respect is shown throughout the hierarchy of football from the young amateur Sunday league players right up to the top of the game. An obvious thought is that of course the amateur game can’t benefit from technology directly as the referee at that level will always be the law-maker but with a changing culture at the top of respect this could see a domino effect throughout the leagues and through the youth of the community and get rid of this Counter Attack philosophy where every official decision can be challenged and maybe just maybe viewed as beyond reproach.
“There is not a single convincing argument against the use of goal-line technology. With offside incidents, it is slightly more complicated, but the Argentinian goal which was allowed to stand shows the failure of the system even better.Referee Roberto Rosetti had a long consultation with the assistant referee, who was in contact with the fourth official via a microphone.He would undoubtedly have heard that Tevez was offside, the whole stadium had already seen it by then via images on the scoreboard.Yet, because the referee was not allowed to rely on video images, he had to award the goal which he knew should have been disallowed.You could see the doubt in his eyes. Technology does not undermine the authority of referees, it only helps them”
FifPro technical committee statement after a decision to allow a goal which was clearly offside in the 2010 World Cup, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8766423.stm
There should be clear outlines as to how much of the game should be handed to Hawk eye and how much time can be devoted to officials in an evidence viewing room. Not every decision should go to evidence only the major decisions such as Goal Line Technology,This has been an Achilles heel for a long time going back to the England Vs West Germany final of 66, to Roy Carroll’s fumble for Manchester United vs Tottenham in which a goal for Tottenham should have been given and on to modern times such as the 2010 South Africa World Cup where Frank Lampard’s shot which clearly went over the line by a good 2 ft wasn’t given at a time where England could have gone in at half time level at 2-2 and the game mentality changes unfortunately that wasn’t to be.The other main decision should be horror tackles and tackles in which the referee may have to give a red card. The reason for this is because it is of such importance to keep 11 men on a field in a sport that generates so much money every decision could be harmful or beneficial so getting that right decision is crucial as there are questions to be answered on the field at times ones which will need clearing up for example what if a player dives and gets a player sent off at a crucial stage of the game ? should the referee send the player off? what did the referee see? how far away was he ? should he make a panicked decision with 10 players around him shouting at him ? or should he blow his whistle and signal a square with his hands and ask a panel of expert official’s watching the evidence to make the right and fair call?.
One argument against which I have heard is the time which will be taken to do so and that it would add too much time to a game and eventually slow the football match down too much. Why ? why would it slow it down too much if you look at the decisions it should only be brought in for the majority of the time the players are arguing their case to a pressurised referee which delays his decisions as he has to take time to restore order and in rugby its estimated to add an extra 30 seconds per decision made so what would be the difference in the time taken?. If you put that into context of the whole game a fan may be in his seat for an extra 5 minutes a game if that game is a heated occasion needing many major decisions, is that really so long ?.There is also the option of each manager having three chances in a game to challenge a decision for example a player running through on goal and scores but the linesman puts his flag up late disallowing the goal , the manager of that team could then challenge the decision and if the video referees see it to be onside the goal would stand.
“The sub-plot is that referees want players, managers and club officials sanctioned much more toughly ”
SPFA chief executive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9230434.stm
This decision is one in the making and I believe one day these laws will all be involved in the game as the game looks to withhold its standing and credibility in the world market where decisions have to be accurate and fair.Football has such a responsibility financial wise as businesses that at times they cannot afford to have decisions go against them which shouldn’t have such as the famous “Goal that never was” for Neil Warnocks Crystal Palace, who scored in the corner of the goal only for the ball to canon back off of the inner posts, the referee gave a goal kick to Bristol City.I believe that the days of poor decisions like this are nearing an end and that technology does have a future part to play in Football and we should welcome it and not be threatened by it and hopefully we shall see a rise in respect for referees and officials because remember this, We wouldn’t have the beautiful game if it wasn’t for our loyal referees! and let’s be honest none of us want to see a recurrence of what happened in Scotland in 2010 where referees went on strike
“We have created a space for people to say referees should be treated differently,”said John McKendrick".(http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9230434.stm)
Goals in soccer are too infrequent to to get wrong. Whether a goal cross the line has to be confirmed.
Others will argue the same things leading up to the play and the consequences of going down this slippery slope. It is a fair argument. However, 1. Let us get one thing right. We can have a debate about the other stuff later. 2. Other sports have done the same thing and its not a problem. The NBA is a good example. A last touch ball at the end of a game is critical. But the refs dont look at a missed foul preceding the play. Hey, one thing at a time. Set priorities. Goals in soccer, like no other sports, can completely change the complexion of a game.
The technology is used in other sports
Tennis and cricket are allot faster sports which are allot harder to judge.
For instance in tennis there is mainly just the one question. Did the ball cross the line or not.
In football there are two.
Did it cross the line and
Did it cross the line by fair means or foul.
It would be unfair to answer just one of of those questions with technology but to leave the other unanswered.
To answer both questions you would have to video everything that went on before the goal which would not be enjoyable.
Limited challenges are also unfair because if, after judicial use of your allowances, you spot horrendous foul, your stuck.
A serious question is: Why does Football, without all this technology have far far more viewers that all these other sports that use it.?
Tennis, rugby, cricket, etc. The controversy and continuity in these sports is less important than the clarity the technology provides, and it can be controlled by limited use of challenges, etc. Referees and their assistants do make mistakes, why do we put up with their imperfections when we can help them?
Sorry dude to left, but the number of viewers watching soccer has nothing to do with this issue. judging plays in soccer can be just as difficult. Speed of play isnt the only aspect. Vantage point, positioning, white soccer ball on white socks, shoes, jersey can all contribute to imperfections in judgement.
Football is an art not a science.
Football - the beautiful game - has a natural ebb and flow, the speed and end to end nature of the game should be interrupted as little as possible. Do we want to stop the game for every debatable decision. Was it a handball, did the defender play the ball or take out the man, which way should the throw in be awarded, should it be a corner or a goal kick, was the forward marginally offside or not etc... Where would it end?
Referees and linesmen are human and therefore cannot be perfect but if there is consent that we accept their decisions, right or wrong then we can preserve the essence of the game. Its not all about winning otherwise fans would not support those teams that have not enjoyed success for decades.
Goal Line Technology such as GoalRef is instantaneous. The project intended only for a signal to be immediately sent to the system it's hooked up to and into the referees watches. Upon receiving this signal (all this happening in a split second), the referee would know for sure the ball crossed the line.
HawkEye also takes a literal split second, unlike your typical video review. While HawkEye requires a request to spit out its "Goal" or "No Goal" answer, it is still lightning fast. A coaches appeals system to the 4th official would work nicely here.
Both of these methods are in the final levels of testing for use in professional play.
I am a referee myself. I understand it's an art. This debate is over GOAL LINE technology though. Not "fix every call the players don't agree with" technology.
These are all subject to the interpretation of the official. Do we want to stop the game for every debatable decision? Of course not! Flow of the game. But is the ball going over the line a debatable decision? No. There is no gray area. It is either all the way over the line or it is not. There is LITERALLY a line.
Calls on the field: Interpretation of the referee. Examples: "Was there intent?" "Will the player gain advantage?" "Was that shoulder to shoulder contact or did he push off with force with his hand to send the player down?"
BUT, with all this in mind: Ball going over a line (ESPECIALLY a goal line) is this or that. It did go over or it didnt. White team did earn that goal, red keeper did fail to save that goal. OR. White team did not earn that game winner, good save by the red keeper.
Goal line calls are this or that. Because the human eye is sometimes incapable of seeing it, this is one area where technology can improve our skills. Are we asking the technology to make the calls on the field for us? No. They are to the interpretation of the official, as always. But over the line or not? There is no interpretation. It is, or is not.
It would be divisive.
There would inevitably be a cut off point - a level of the game at which it would be too expensive and impractical to employ this technology. More people play football in amateur teams on a Sunday than watch professional matches on a Saturday. At present they play the same game, with the same rules and the same ethos - that the referee should be respected.
Your ignorance is greatly saddening.
firstly the football association have enough money for this technology, if not then they should reduce footballers wages to fund this. So finance is not an issue or a minuscule one.
Also This technology is used in Tennis, however in amateur tennis matches such technology is not used. This technology should only be used on the professional scale because they can afford to do so. Therefore your argument contains a fallacy, the fallacy that if it cannot be applied to all levels of football it should not be applied at all.
The referee does not become less respected, what reason is this so? In Tennis the umpire is respected even though he was corrected. Referees will be more respected for allowing their decisions to be corrected, who wants a referee imposing wrong decisions when they could have been corrected in seconds through technology.
Therefore the argument opposite is completely invalid and false.
The deliberation of linesmen, particularly Azerbaijani linesmen, is an important part of the game.
If we allow computers to referee our football matches, then we might as well allow robots to play the games for us! Subjectivity is what makes the game exciting! I don't want to watch a game where the ball actually has to cross the line in order for a goal to have been scored. How dull would that be?
Besides, any Manchester United fan will tell you that many of the so-called "rules" governing the game are necessarily flexible. 4 minutes of injury time at Old Trafford may seem more like 6 minutes if Alex Ferguson doesn't have a lead.
You are implying that the players should not abide by the rules, this means that, to make fair play possible each team/ player is allowed to break the rules. This is stupid and ignorant. The teams should abide by the rules and make the game exciting not by foul play but by genius of teamwork and creativity.
Also just because you dont want to watch a game where the rules are not followed does not mean everyone agrees with you, maybe there are intelligent people out there who believe in fair play, truth and an efficient system where the players are encouraged to excite the audience with magic not with cheating.
Also maybe then the referee should not call the time, but a computerized whistle should be blown.
Use your brain please.
Goal line technology creates inconsistency in the laws
There are competitions that involve many levels of football e.g. The FA Cup, even semi-professional teams enter, they have about 4 or 5 qualifying rounds before being able to enter the first round with the bottom two professional divisions (then the upper two pro divisions added at the 3rd round). You can't have a competition which has different laws and different criteria for judging goals in the same competition. Secondly, the structure of football itself is actually a continuous structured hierarchy. Grass roots all the way up to the ighest division. In theory a team after several years could make it to the top by starting at the bottom, this mean it is like one continuous progressive strugle in a single structure. Introducing GLT means the inconsistency between that structure which is like one competiton. Those calling for GLT claim fairness is their cause but in reality for rare events a major widespread injustice is caused.
You have contradicted yourself entirely.
If the referee does not allow a goal in due to some error in sight but the ball actually crossed the line, on another occasion the ball crosses the line and it is counted there is an inconsistency within the laws.
The technology could be used where there is a camera present. Also the technology only makes the decisions more accurate, it uses the same laws but increases accuracy. This makes it more just for the players and their supporters.
Your conclusion is ignorant, paradoxical and you have not used logic.
Again, when young footballers can play without this technology but when entering the professional world they are faced with more challenges, one of them being 'the rules are actually consistent and the decisions more accurate'- if they cannot adapt then their talent is non-existent.
The costs and changes for a relatively rare scenario are unjustified
A ball regularly hits the cross bar in football matches, maybe once every few games. However, occasions when the ball hits the cross bar and bounces down onto the line or thereabouts are considerably fewer, as for occasions when the ball bounces down and moves COMPLETELY over the line and a goal is not given.....then this is very rare indeed. Also when the ball is directly cleared off the line by a defender and was clearly a goal, such cases are very rare. How many clear occasions when the ball DEFINITELY crossed the line...and yet no goal was given can you remember? We are talking about changing the whole of the tradition, rules and nature of football for this one event which hardly ever happens. One problem here is that alot of people do not no the rule concerning ball in play. They think if the ball protrudes over the line it is a goal, this is not the case, the ball must completely crosses over the line...so that not even 1mm would hang over the edge of white line. A situation much more common than this is when linesman continuously say the ball is out of play, when it protrudes over the line, again the ball is in play because it did not completely cross (and ofetn not even the majority of it has crossed).
Again, another weak and un-reasonable hypothesis >
Your argument basically says: because these occurrences are rare, technologies which would help make decisions on these should not be put in place.
However, goals that are not given due to some rare mistake do affect the match either way which then affects the financial status of that team and league.
By putting this technology in place you are ensuring that these rare occurrences are accounted for and the decisions on these occurrences are accurate and just.
You stated in your last few lines the problems faced by linesman, this can be sorted through this technology. My reasoning is that the use of light rays are more accurate than the reflexes of a human linesman. Therefore these problems are solved.
It brings no overall change to the causes of success and failure in football
Many people think without GLT there is injustice. However, this is incorrect. This is because the referees decision and the inherent possibility of mistake is known to both teams and part of the rules. So it is fair, both teams benefit and lose from such decisions in the course of a match and over the season. Bringing in GLT makes alot of changes but will make no changes to the status quo of football. There is no team that continuously loses because of the lack of technology and there is no team that is continuously unjustifiably successful because of the absence of GLT. Rather success in football is related to more important factors in a teams control e.g. skill, speed, passing, accuracy, creativity, strength, anticipation, formations, tactics, stamina, fitness, taking chances, motivational management, tactical management etc. It is very foolish that managers and players who can't take losing blame one technological issue for their failings. They would do better not to change football like a workman blaming the tools and blaming the rules that are the same for both, and instead concentrate changing the real reasons they lost the game. Football is a game of 90mins....one debatebale goal is not the reason for the loss...rather the failure over 90 mins or so, to create more chances, score more goals and defend those goals that were scored against you. Did we hear of a team that got relegated, because they kept losing goals that were not goals due to wrong decisions about whether the ball crossed the line? NO. Did we hear of a team that one the league because they kept getting false decisions in their favour due to absence of GLT.? NO.
The inherent possibility of mistake !! by the very nature of the sentence you are saying that the referees are doing something wrong i.e. they are making mistakes. Mistakes should be avoided therefore the solution to these mistakes should be put in place. The GLT system has been scientifically and empirically verified, through tennis and other sports and experiments. Therefore GLT should be put in place.
You are claiming that tradition should be used instead of reason however, things change, and this change has no inherent problems for it solves them.
Actually you are completely wrong about a bad decision not being the reason for a loss.
For example- If two teams are completely equal but one goal is allowed illegally then this goal could decide the match. You are allowing an injustice to take place with no sound reason. You and your arguments are completely ridiculous.
Grow up and use reason, logic and perfection.
Analogies with other sports are false
People keep saying 'Tennis, Cricket and Rugby have GLT' Firstly, that doesn't mean they have made their game more just....as indeed it is not applied at all levels of the game, and it is only applied for some issues, also, it is just a case of changing the rules for the elite when they had the same standard before. When two teams no the rules, i9t doesn't matter what the standard and criteria is as long as its the same for both, so it does not bring in any change in such a status of justice applied to the game.
However, the more important point, is that football is a flowing game, where in theory, the ball could stay in play for 45mins without any stoppage at all. As for Tennis and Cricket then by necessity they must continuously stop, scoring in them is also continuous. They are games of stops and starts. Rugby, relatively is also a game of continuous stops and starts, due to the nature of tackling in rugby and how it is dealt with. Tennis is all about whether the ball is 'in' or 'out'. This is not the case with football, a goal can be rare, and the main factor in football is not whether the ball was over the line, rather in most cases a goal is known to clearly cross the line, it will usually remain in the net or obviously cross it. The main factor in goals being score is the play that leads to them and not the actual final stage of the ball crossing the line.
When has the GLT not worked? the GLT measures line decisions in all sports and scientifically it works and is more accurate than the human eye.
The GLT system has allowed for a much more efficient and consistent system of sport, it has changed games and it has improved the players awareness of the system.
You argued that football is continuous because it is possible that it can be, a tennis rally could last 100 years , a football game could be out of play each second for it is logically possible for this to happen. Therefore your argument against other sports is wrong.
FIFA will be contradicting their objective of opening football to the world
Gary Lineker claims 'the world of football' wants GLT. He means by that, himself (who has a job making millions talking about football and can then claim to be a big champion of changes as he beats the GLT drum) and all those rich managers and footballers who can't take losing and will look for any scapegoat for their loss (it wasn't them being overpaid, overrated and not having the committment, skill, tactics etc but rather because the technology is not there!) He doesn't mean by 'the world of football' the ACTUAL WORLD OF FOOTBALL.....i.e. the thousands of football clubs all over the world plus the millions of players and supporters.
However, the media is busy at the moment pumping a very one sided argument (as well as it being an irrational one) in favour of GLT, so the TV watching sheep will most likely repeat what they hear. No doubt FIFA and manufacturers will get very rich on the introduction of any such technology....endorsements etc.
But all of this contradicts the idea of the South Africa 2010 world cup...opening football to the poor etc. In reality football would became a nintendo game on the pitch for the elite-rich.....with the rest of the world playing a game with very different equipment and different rules and standards.
By installing the GLT system it in no way follows that it will affect the amount of people playing the sport... what evidence justifies your link?
By allowing GLT they are actually creating a more consistent and just system which it can be assumed will encourage and attract more players because they know they will play in a equal and just sport.
Also FIFA does not have to install this technology everywhere, this would be foolish. FIFA will only install it on a professional scale, which will not affect the amount of players coming in because players from all social backgrounds can play if they are talented.
This is the first nail in the coffin of flowing football
FIFA introduced various rules that changed the nature of the game with the view to MAINTAINING FLOWING FOOTBALL e.g. The backpass rule (preventing a team continuously passing back to the goalkeeper who could then pick it up).
As for GLT then this clearly breaks the flow of the game because the goal line bounce scenarios usually occur with the ball remaining in play after it. The referee having to stop the game for a decision breaks the run of play. Also if the decision is close, we are back to debate and time, whereas the rule is better that a goal is given when a goal is CLEARLY SEEN by the officials.
If the aim is to remove human errors and be 100% accurate...then firstly humans invent the technology and they judge the results of the technology. There is no proof that such systems are 100% accurate. Secondly, the amount of decisions in a game that effect a goal are MAINLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BALL CROSSING THE LINE. Rather offsides, unseen fouls, unseen handballs, handballs that were not handballs, penalties that were not penalties, wrongly given corners, free kicks and throw ins, corners, frre kicks and throw ins that were not given.....along with sendings off...that either should or shouldn't have been but were given the opposite decision....ACCOUNT FOR FAR MORE WRONGLY SCORED GOALS OR WRONGLY DENIED GOALS. How does it make sense to change the whole nature and universality of football for the least significant occurrence?
The point is that these human errors are natural and (not trying to elimnate them mechanically allows the game to flow, and in general teams gain and lose equally from these decisions. If you actually wanted to try and deal with all such decisions with various technological, computer, camera, sensor aids.....then the game really does turn into a big bore, it slows down and we may as well restrict football to nintendo. Also it would still be unable to eliminate injustice because too many things are impossible to know for sure, even when looked at many times. If we really want football to go this way then...lie detector tests are also a must to see whether players INTENTIONALLY did this or that. Better still, only declare the result of each game two days after play so everything can be properly analyzed.
Your argument basically concludes this hypothesis : The flowing of football is good, therefore things which disrupt the flow of football are bad. Therefore GLT disrupts the flow of football and should be banned.
However, fouls disrupt the flow of football... by your reasoning this should be banned.
Allowing goals to then trigger another kick-off disrupts the flow of football therefore this should be banned.
This is foolish and your argument should hence be thrown out.
The GLT provides a fair accurate system of measurement and this outweighs the need to keep the football flowing.
What do you think?