midfielder
Well-Known Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn2kfwIffH4
It seems that 8 different types of GLT options were involved in Phase 1, which has now been completed.
Only 2 of the 8 GLT options successfully passed Phase 1 and will proceed to Phase 2 testing.
The 2 options are:
1. HAWK-EYE, which is a British-designed system that uses visual images provided by 6 x high-speed video cameras mounted around the stadium to triangulate and track the ball in flight. Installation costs will be high.
The margin of error for the system is 3.6 millimetres and will give fans visual “proof” of the validity of the decision.
A major limitation is that the software requires 25% of the ball to be visible – so no decision could be given if the ball is “buried” under a keeper’s body.
2. GOALREF is a Danish-German project, which uses magnetism to determine whether the ball is over the line.
The electronic probes are attached between the inner ball and the inside of its leather outer lining and sensors are installed on the inside of the posts and crossbar and send out bursts of electronic waves.
An “instantaneous” signal (< 0.1 second!) is sent to the ref the ball has crossed the line,
And, because a magnetic signal is used, visibility limitations that accompany Hawk-eye are not present with this system.
The system is compatible with any ball and will be much cheaper than Hawk-Eye, with a mass production version already in the pipeline.
This 4 minute video summarises where we are with GLT – I would put my money on Option 2 since it can be easily & cheaply rolled out.
It seems that 8 different types of GLT options were involved in Phase 1, which has now been completed.
Only 2 of the 8 GLT options successfully passed Phase 1 and will proceed to Phase 2 testing.
The 2 options are:
1. HAWK-EYE, which is a British-designed system that uses visual images provided by 6 x high-speed video cameras mounted around the stadium to triangulate and track the ball in flight. Installation costs will be high.
The margin of error for the system is 3.6 millimetres and will give fans visual “proof” of the validity of the decision.
A major limitation is that the software requires 25% of the ball to be visible – so no decision could be given if the ball is “buried” under a keeper’s body.
2. GOALREF is a Danish-German project, which uses magnetism to determine whether the ball is over the line.
The electronic probes are attached between the inner ball and the inside of its leather outer lining and sensors are installed on the inside of the posts and crossbar and send out bursts of electronic waves.
An “instantaneous” signal (< 0.1 second!) is sent to the ref the ball has crossed the line,
And, because a magnetic signal is used, visibility limitations that accompany Hawk-eye are not present with this system.
The system is compatible with any ball and will be much cheaper than Hawk-Eye, with a mass production version already in the pipeline.
This 4 minute video summarises where we are with GLT – I would put my money on Option 2 since it can be easily & cheaply rolled out.
