The dullest tie of the round
-
Not enough money in the CL apparently for goal line technology, the hugely successful 5 man ref system is the way of the future!
Michel Platini: Goal-line technology too costly for Champions League
Uefa president Michel Platini says goal-line technology is too expensive for use in the Champions League.
Platini, 57, said he would rather the money was spent on youth football.
"I prefer to put more money into youth football and infrastructure than spend it on technology when there's a goal in a blue moon that hasn't been seen by a referee," he said.
Platini added that he was happy with the five-man referee system, used in the Champions League and Europa League.
Fifa is set to use goal-line technology at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.
Platini said the technology would need to be installed in 280 stadiums for European football, which the former France international sees as unnecessary.
"It would cost around 54 million euros (£46m) over five years for this technology, so it's quite expensive for the sort of mistake which happens once every 40 years," he said.
"In the Champions League, I'm very happy with the results (of a five-man team). Practically no mistakes have been made and the referees see practically everything that happens on the pitch."Comment
-
Why can they not just put one camera on the goal lines and stipulate a rule for who ever has TV rights they have to install a camera at each end on the goal line which they have direct access to?
Cost would be minimal
**** me Platini and his cronies are dodgy as ****.
Go **** yourselfComment
-
Indeed
I am sure they could be installed as a match is being played, love the 40 year comment as well!
Comment
-
I can sort of see Platini's reason here. How often does this sort of incident actually happen?
In terms of the number of Champions League games each season (125 I think, not including the qualifying stages), it can't happen more than once or twice a season surely? And on those rare occasions it does happen, its gets a disproportionately large amount of press making the issue seem larger than it actually is.
Its a lot of money to be spending to fix a particularly rare problem.Comment
-
I think it's worthy of the investment, regardless how often an event like this occurs. Then when it *does* clarify a potential game-changing moment, the media will be forced to move their attention to more pressing matters, like racisim etc. It might also stop the excessive vitriol directed at England's escaped goat; If the referee hasn't made a mistake that has 'apparently' cost England a World Cup, then we can only blame Hodgson. (
)
Plus, after the initial splurge of cash, the technology will be in place and therefore, won't be as costly after this 'five year' time period Platini mentions. And what's to say FIFA won't find a way of passing the cost onto the participants, the fans and their sponsors? Perhaps they should invest the stupid amount of cash they generate from final tickets instead of lining their own pockets?
I'd also like to know what FIFA are spending on 'youth and infrastructure'.Comment
-
I'm against goal-line technology because it will lead to greater use of technology. That's not a problem in itself.
But once decisions are open to video review then you will have irresistible pressure for manager's challenges and review of all goals.
And lo, space for a quick ad appears.
It's the dream of the television companies. They can make a lot of money out of an ad shown in a stoppage for a video review. And we can say goodbye to uninterrupted coverage of football..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
The criteria for the technology which will be installed was that it had to provide a verdict in under a second and not interfere in the game.Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
As long as they stick to that, we'll be fine.
Oh I don't know.Comment
-
Originally posted by dom9 View PostThe criteria for the technology which will be installed was that it had to provide a verdict in under a second and not interfere in the game.
As long as they stick to that, we'll be fine.
As you imply, we know they won't. Sooner or later we'll get timeouts.
As Platini says, it's a rare event so we have to wonder why companies like Sky are pushing it so hard. Of course it could just be something to talk about - how else do you fill 24 hours of sports "news: if you have to rely solely on reporting on action? - but it seems a mighty strange coincidence that timeouts would very much suit their financial interest.
If there is a technological solution that meets the criteria you mention then I bet Sky will simply find another Trojan horse for the introduction of timeouts. And they will describe the use of goal-line technology but rejection of a manager's challenge (or whatever) on video evidence as hypocritical.Last edited by Neil Young; 29-03-13, 01:29 PM..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Originally posted by elrichio86 View Post
Platini suggested it needs to be installed at 280 venues for the cost to be 125 million.
It doesn't unless you include the qualifying rounds. If it is not to be used in the qualifying rounds then it only need be installed when a team qualifies for the tournement proper (at most 160 teams over the 5 year cycle assuming no team ever qualifies more than once).
We have already cut down his cost by over 40% from £54m to £30.7m
We know that each year several similar faces qualify. I'd guess at fewer than 60 teams have played in the competition proper in the last 5 years. True cost £10m
Now if we are counting all games, including qualifiers there are 200 matches where the 5 officials system requires 2 extra officials to fly across the continent (cost) be put up in a hotel (cost) paid for their services (cost) and whatever other miscellaneous gravy boat expenses they claim (cost) each year. 1000 games over the course of 5 years.
His cost projections are generous.
That it happens rarely is not an excuse. That it happens and is easily solved should be enough to motivate UEFA to fix a problem.
Either way, £54m is peanuts compared to how much the CL generates. Peanuts.Football without Origi is nothingComment
-
Could ITV mention Beckham any more often ffs? Embarrassing.3rd place. Worst champions ever.
Comment
-
According to the commentator, Barcelona have "****" goals this season.
He probably said "shipped" but I prefer the latter explanation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RoboKop View Post
It's nauseating. Their Beckham worship is making me want Barca to pump them silly tonight.Comment
-
Originally posted by RoadEnd View Post
Messi has been ****ting goals for the last 19 games on the bounce.Comment
-
Originally posted by RoadEnd View Post
The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.Comment
Comment