Hoy se aprobó la tan ansiada tecnología de gol, después de haber vivido varios errores en los últimos torneos grandes como el de Espinosa y Larrionda en contra de Inglaterra o el de Kassai, Eros y Vad en contra de Ucrania, pero es esta la medida que estabamos esperando?
Desde ya quiero dejar claro que yo soy muy tradicional en estos aspectos, si por mi fuera seguiríamos usando sólo un árbitro dos asistentes y un cuarto oficial, pero miremos lo escrito entre lineas por la IFAB.
Primero le dan la potestad al árbitro de elegir si usa o no el sistema, pero le dan una responsabilidad al decir "el árbitro puede ignorar la información que recibe en su reloj durante el partido si está seguro de que el reloj no funciona correctamente." Pero ¿que pasaría, si el árbitro decide ignorar la señal?, valla ¿no que la tecnología era infalible?, y si que pasa si el colegiado valida el gol porque el reloj lo dice y este no había entrado? Seguro FIFA igualmente se lo va a cargar y enviar a casa ¿no?
Caso hipotético para pensar.
El reloj dice que el balón no ha entrado, el asistente dice que si y el árbitro está lejos de la jugada y no tiene la visión perfecta. ¿Qué decisión debe tomar él árbitro? ¿Es un 50/50 y una mala decisión seguramente la va a pagar caro, entonces? Si sigue a su asistente y este se equivoca se va a casa seguro, pero ¿si se equivoca el chip? Claro que tan bien te vas a casa, pero ahí nadie dirá nada y además destruirás la confianza con tu asistente y FIFA dirá que no seguiste las instrucciones, ¿entonces? estamos en una encrucijada no?
Dicen que el árbitro debe probar el sistema 60 minutos antes de empezar el juego y tomar la decisión de si lo usa o no, pero ¿no te va a cargar si FIFA no lo usas, por ejemplo, en el mundial de clubes? Claro que estas desobedeciendo lo que FIFA manda ¿no?
No se ustedes que opinan, pero yo preferiría salir de un torneo por un error mio o de uno de mis asistentes a irme como "basura" por culpa de una máquina, ahora está, también se aprobaron los asistentes adicionales, pero ya habéis visto lo que le ha pasado a Kassai entonces...
EL ERROR ES PARTE DEL JUEGO, EL ÁRBITRO ES UN SER HUMANO QUE SE PUEDE EQUIVOCAR, Y CON LA TECNOLOGÍA SE ROBOTIZA EL FÚTBOL, APUESTO QUE VA A VOLVER A PASAR Y Y A QUIEN ECHAREMOS LA CULPA?, AL CHIP?, NO SE LE CULPARÁ AL ÁRBITRO, ACASO LA FIFA O EL MUNDO LE CREERÁ AL ÁRBITRO QUE NO FUNCIONÓ EL RELOJ?, YO SIGO PENSANDO QUE SIGAMOS IGUAL, EL FÚTBOL ES UN JUEGO Y NO SE LE DEBE DESNATURALIZAR.
ResponderEliminarConcuerdo 100% contigo, afortunadamente la Conmebol es tacaña en estos aspectos y no hemos sufrido ese tipo de infortunios, por lo cual creo que nosotros seguiremos disfrutando de la forma común
EliminarI do not understand those doubts.
ResponderEliminar1. It is not the assistant referees' task anymore to determine whether the ball crossed the line or not, hence, he is not allowed or at least not advised to make such a decision. When there is no advice by the assistant referee, the referee logically cannot lose any trust in him.
2. Those machines have unfolded - in football as well as in tennis - that they are 100% working. In tennis, there has been in the first year after the implementation of the "hawk eyes" a maximum of 3 mms the ball's impression could have been displayed wrongly. Now, there is 100% ensurance that the machines are working.
3. Shifting responsibility to a human, to the assistant referee, additional assistant referee or even referee is wrong: referees are told to interpret the laws of the game, to make good decisions. But they are not able to. The human eye is not designed to determine whether the ball crossed the line by 2 cms in 1 metre height. Referees are humans, they have to make human decisions, but in goal decisions as in ENG-UKR, it is simply unhumane.
4. I emphasize that IFAB consists of eight members, four of them (THE HALF!) come from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The original countries of football if you want so. These guys have proven in the past that they want to change as less as possible, they do not want to break the laws of the game, they behaved very conversatively in the past and now they have approved goal-line technology. Be sure: they would not have done so if they had not been convinced that
a) the machines are working and that
b) it is time for technology to disenthrall the referees from an inhumane kind of decision. Keep in mind: Platini's doubts (he is worrying about going too far if starting with goal-line technology) are wrong. The only type of decision in football refereeing which is black-and-white, which is inhumane and finally not able to make based on interpretation is goal-yes-goal-no.
Therefore, a clear yes to this decision, after all, I am thrilled by that and hope to see a doubtful goal decision correctly made by one of the sorts of technology at Club WC..
That´s what they tell, but what the write is different. why?
Eliminar1. The referee has to choose if he uses it or not
2. As I quotet the law they write empahtises "el árbitro puede ignorar la información que recibe en su reloj durante el partido si está seguro de que el reloj no funciona correctamente." so the watch could be mistaken and who is going to take charge if a mistake happens??
3. The refs and the assistant refs are going to have a watch, and if does not work well they have to take the decision in the old way.
4. The day, I hope does not come, but if the tech fails its obvious that the only one who is going to be punished is the ref.
And as I say I prefere it the old way, players make mistakes, refs make mistakes, if we cant live with it, then please make robots to whistle the matches.
You can only make mistakes if something is possible to fulfill, if a good solution you did not achieve was possible. This is not possible here. I am no friend of the hawk-eye by the way because of the fact that there could be difficulties when players hide the camera's view and as the costs will be probably beared by the clubs and not by the federations, hence, I am for the goalref system. The technology must have 100%, that is clear, and I do not doubt that this will be achieved as these chips are deployed for years in the players' shoes (e.g.) to determine paths the players ran during the match and the distance they ran. It is really no new technology, nothing that has been discovered in 2012. So now we have - in the bad scenario you are worrying about - only 99% ensurance. And how much do we have with (additional) referees? If you take the big decisions, 60 or 70% could be possibly real. I want to go with 99% at least, but of course with 100%. But you did not really refer to my argument that a referee has to interpret the laws, that his skills are measured by his abilities how to detect infringement, how to lead a match etc. Goal or no goal is different and inhumane.
EliminarWe do not need robots by the way, but we need technology to make the most crucial decision which is available in football correct, since football is no game anymore, which I regret, but is connected with billions/trillions of money and an uncountable value for teams, fans and partly whole nations.
EliminarKassai no tuvo error alguno. Al árbitro que viene de frente a la portería, le resulta imposible apreciar si el balón entra o no. Es el mismo caso del gol de Michel
Eliminaren Brasil y el del egipcio Al Ghandour en aquel fuera de puerta que tanto se comentó.
Los errores han sido de Vad y de los diversos
asistentes. Gran injusticia contra Kassai, quizás producto de que Collina está a sueldo de la Federación de Ucrania.
O lo estaba hasta hace poco tiempo.