Talk:Goal-line technology

Terrible article

The debate did not start with Pedro Mendes in 2005 as this article suggests.

This article is too anglo-centric anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.174.3 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England vs. Germany

I get the feeling that maybe this page will need to be semi-protected if erroneous edits continue... 94.192.52.244 (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrmccann (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The goal was clearly a goal. Still I think the English people making edits to the controversy might want to wait a while for their passions to cool before making one-sided reversions. Its best to keep to temperate language (and honestly even better to keep out very recent controversy). 24.216.69.79 (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC) -- "...even though it was clear from replays that the ball had indeed crossed the line." This is ok by me. Much better. 24.216.69.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Wouldn't the "goal" have been shown inside the stadium on the large TV screen as well? --86.136.20.134 (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referees are forbidden from using video technology at all, including the big screens. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

There are a number of issues with the use of the 2012 FA Cup Final as an example. Firstly, "the ball went in" would be understood by most fans as meaning it was a goal, in which case there would no doubt as to whether "the ball passed the line" and the issue would be that the officials failed to award the goal. However, replays of the incident are inconclusive so the actual issue is that it cannot be determined with any certainty whether "the ball went in" or not.

Secondly, this incident (the Andy Carroll header) took place in the 85th minute; adding on the 4 minutes of additional time there was another 9 minutes of play remaining so it cannot be concluded that had a goal been awarded that it "would've been extra time" - a win for either side in normal time would have still have been a real possibility.

Suggest making the background more generic and having a list of the more (in)famous incidents (including possibly the goal awarded to Chelsea's Juan Mata in the FA Cup semi-final against Tottenham Hotspur on 15th April 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.33.116 (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

In the paragraph "Intial testing" it is written that FIFA required "that the system notified the referee of the decision within one second of the incident happening". The sub-paragraph "Goalminder" says afterwards that the Goalminder "technology uses high-speed cameras built into the goal posts and cross bar to... deliver visual evidence to the referee, in less than five seconds". Isn't that contradiction? It follows that the Goalminder system actually doesn't follow the FIFA guidelines. I know there are references to both statements, and I checked the sources - they do say so. But... Tomer T (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily a contradiction. I don't know what happened, but maybe FIFA failed the Goalminder technology on that basis. mg SH 00:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not updated

It includes the sentences "The German-Danish GoalRef technology is likely to undergo match testing in two Danish Superliga matches on 23 May 2012" and "The same system will be in place for the technology's second test on 2 June for England's friendly match against Belgium". Tomer T (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GoalControl not part of the testing phases?

They're not listed as being part of the testing phase. It seems like they just came out of nowhere and blew away the competition and won the contract for the 2014 World Cup! There's very little info on them indeed and it seems quite strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.5.113 (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goal-line technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cairos.com/unternehmen/index.php?sl=1
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cairos.com/unternehmen/gltsystem.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110115032840/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-23403548-federer-hawk-eye-must-be-scrapped.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-23403548-federer-hawk-eye-must-be-scrapped.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Goal-line technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]