Goal Line Technology made a mistake during the Fiorentina-Braga match in the Conference League. The technology that detects whether or not the ball has crossed the goal line had made a mistake by awarding a goal to Cabral: a decision which was then corrected by the VAR. But how does GLT actually work?
The Fiorentina also passed the return match against Braga by beating the Portuguese 3-2 at the ‘Franchi’ after a 0-4 draw in the first leg and accessing the round of 16 Conference League. An easy match on paper for the Italian team which, except for the initial scares characterized by the shock start of the guests capable of scoring two goals immediately, saw the Viola then come back avoiding suffering a sensational comeback. But Fiorentina-Braga per se will not be remembered only for the double confrontation that rewarded the Tuscans, but above all for an episode of refereeing which characterized this match and which had probably never happened before. Nothing like this has ever happened since the advent of technology in the world of football. During the match, precisely in the 5th minute of the second half, Cabral scores the goal that would have brought Fiorentina up 2-2.
The striker’s split shot was deflected with a hand by Tiago Sa near the post. The referee’s watch Bastien, that relating to Goal Line Technology, had vibrated and actually the virtual reconstruction of the action showed that the ball had completely crossed the goal line. But that wasn’t actually the case. The French race director, recalled by the Var, despite the images of the GLT had clearly shown the ball crossing the goal line thus awarding the goal, after a check on the monitor that lasted almost 5 minutes, he canceled the goal. This is the case with technology belying technology. But why did referee Bastien disallow that goal? What does the regulation say? how Goal Line Technology actually works so much to be denied by the VAR who rightly canceled that network? These are the questions that fans and insiders asked themselves at the end of Fiorentina-Braga which however was not the first mistake of technology in football.
Goal Line Technology’s mistake in Fiorentina-Braga is not the first
Goal Line Technology is not infallible. In fact, in June 2020 in the Premier League, during the match between Aston Villa e Sheffield United, home goalkeeper Orjan Nyland dragged the ball from Norwood’s free-kick into goal. The ball clearly went over the goal line practically in contact with the net, but the referee’s bracelet did not signal the goal, which was therefore disallowed, amid protests from Sheffield United. Shortly after, Hawk-Eye, he explained that the seven cameras aimed at goal had all been covered by the players and added that it was the first failure of the system in over nine thousand games. For the record, the match will end 0-0 and that mistake will be decisive in that match.
The creator of Holly and Benji has bought a football club – fiction can become reality
The special watch on the referee’s wrist that warns the match director whether or not the ball has crossed the goal line.
How Goal Line Technology works: 7 cameras per goal
Let’s start immediately from the assumption that the GLT it is not based on a sensor inserted into the ball or on goal posts and crossbars. Contrary to popular belief, the detection takes place thanks to cameras placed in strategic points of the stadium. The final result that establishes whether or not the ball entered the goal establishes it the triangulation of the images produced by these cameras. In fact, it is a type of technology that does not require modifications to the ball or to the structure of the pitch.
But how does it work? The cameras in question I’m 7 and are calibrated to locate the ball within the image and locate areas that are definitely not part of the ball. The System also highlights the smallest part of the entered balloon in contact with the goal line or not and from the moment it detects that the ball has crossed the goal line, it immediately sends a signal to the special watch placed on the referee’s wrist which only has to decree what the GLT has established in that particular episode depending on the result obtained by the cameras.
The wrong image detected by Goal Line Technology in Fiorentina–Braga.
The margin of error of Goal Line Technology
Even technology can be wrong and in fact the Goal Line Technology has a margin of error of less than 0.5 cm as announced by Hawk-Eye. Statistics show that other cases may have already occurred, such as those relating to Fiorentina-Braga and Aston Villa-Sheffield. But there was never any certainty of this. Surely technology is more reliable than the human eye which clearly cannot see the exact moment in which the ball crosses the goal line in the slightest fraction of a second.
The decision is therefore made by a software and in case of error therefore, a scandal should not be created since it is a matter of probability. However, technology is evolving in this sense trying to eliminate even the smallest margins of error. Surely the 7 cameras present give a not indifferent hand to the referee and therefore better support the human eye.
The image seen by the VAR afterward by the referee.
The VAR can correct the Goal Line Technology
Compared to Aston Villa-Sheffield in which the referee, not having received signals on his watch, allowed the action to continue, in Fiorentina-Braga it was the VAR who corrected the GLT malfunction. The latter he had awarded the goal to Cabral but by sending the referee the wrong image. What we all saw on TV was in fact an incorrect projection of what really happened.
In fact, the image sent to the media by Goal Line Technology did not correspond to the exact dynamics of the action. This was the reason that led the referee, evidently suspicious of the dynamics of the ball ending up in the net and the unclear image with the naked eye, to ask for confirmation from the VAR. In fact, from the control room the side image shown later shows how the ball had not completely crossed the goal line as it was clearly partially covered by the post. A clear sign of how the VAR can easily correct Goal Line Technology’s decision in case of doubts on the part of the match director.
