Prog article from a few years ago. It must have been 2012, so it took a bit longer:

I must have watched "Zulu" about a hundred times. I think it's the colours - the blue sky, the yellow grass, the red jackets. In the end, of course, after repeated assaults the overwhelming forces realise they aren't getting anywhere, pack up and leave Richard Burton to read the roll of honour.

The campaign to introduce goal-line technology seems to be a bit like the Zulus. They keep coming back for more, and it looks like as of July they might conceivably get through the last row of the traditionalists' defences.

The International Football Advisory Board, which makes the rules for the game as a whole, is meeting in Kiev the day after the European Championships final to reach a supposedly final decision on using GLT. This will follow up a meeting in London this month to review tests on equipment put forward by eight companies.

Reportedly the idea is not to give anyone a worldwide monopoly, but you can imagine how much it would be worth if you could secure this status in just one major country.

Before looking at the technical issues, for me there's a whopping great clue to why this is a bad idea in the very role of the International Board. It makes rules for the game as a whole, from Tredegar Park to the Millennium Stadium, from a basic league in a developing country to the final of the African Nations Cup. As soon as it lets in this Trojan horse, it draws a line in every single football-playing country and the rules become different on one side from the other.

It might even be that in some countries every single club, even the national association itself, finds itself on the wrong side of the gadget boys' line.

Ten years ago this June, on the day of the World Cup final in Japan, the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan hosted Montserrat in "the other final" contesting the two bottom places in FIFA's rankings. (This is a chance to spread one of the all-time dreadful football puns about Bhutan maybe having a Dorji keeper. In fact they won 4-0 to leave their guests still ranked 204th in the world, but the captain really was called Dorji.)

The point is that the game in Thimphu was every bit as much a FIFA-sanctioned international as Germany v. Brazil was in Yokohama. But would it really make sense for a country like Bhutan with a per capita income below 2,000 US dollars a year to shell out to equip the Changlimithang Stadium?

There seem to be two competing technologies - you have either a sensor in the ball, or video cameras in the posts. If the idea is there'll be no monopoly, presumably a Champions League game in country A could be played with different gizmos from country B. How much more would chipped balls cost than the regular article? Might they behave differently? And how robust would they be?

Picture an exact repeat of the famous incident in the 1966 World Cup final. The ball would have to transmit its signal accurately a split second after being hammered hard enough to shake the crossbar. At some point there will be a systems failure on a key decision in a massive game, and all hell will break loose.

One further argument against the camera approach is that backtracking the video to check on a ball crossing the goal line might show it going out of play as a cross is delivered. The first time this happens, it will generate a clamour to extend the powers of review. And before we know it, clubs will be able to call a time-out to appeal all sorts of decisions and there'll be just enough time to slip in a TV ad for burgers or razor blades.

On this one I'm firmly in favour of leaving very well alone...

I've had an idea that would make VAR completely unnecessary. The TV companies could employ "pundits" with sufficient knowledge, charisma and eloquence to fill their 3 minutes during half time and after the match unaided by fabricated controversy

George Street-Bridge wrote::

I must have watched "Zulu" about a hundred times. I think it's the colours - the blue sky, the yellow grass, the red jackets. In the end, of course, after repeated assaults the overwhelming forces realise they aren't getting anywhere, pack up and leave Richard Burton to read the roll of honour.

The campaign to introduce goal-line technology seems to be a bit like the Zulus. They keep coming back for more, and it looks like as of July they might conceivably get through the la, onst row of the traditionalists' defences.

One further argument against the camera approach is that backtracking the video to check on a ball crossing the goal line might show it going out of play as a cross is delivered. The first time this happens, it will generate a clamour to extend the powers of review. And before we know it, clubs will be able to call a time-out to appeal all sorts of decisions and there'll be just enough time to slip in a TV ad for burgers or razor blades.

On this one I'm firmly in favour of leaving very well alone...

Agree with the points made about VAR.

As for Zulu once someone pointed out the vapor trail in the blue South African 19th century sky it kind of lost a bit for me.

Almost as bad as Ben Hur wearing a Rolex when he fell off the chariot

Bush wrote:

SJG99 wrote:Oh and VAR can't "only be used at Prem grounds". Wembley had it for the 2019 FA Cup Final and Spurs were already back on White Hart Lane then.

What was Wembley at the start of the 2018/19 season? A premier league ground.

Swansea were robbed in the FA cup against Man City. Why was their televised match not using VAR yet the other all premier league cup games live that weekend did use VAR? Because yes Swansea isn’t a Premier league ground. Last season premier league grounds trailed VAR in the cups in preparation to it being in place for this season.

What was it by the end of the season? Not a Premier League ground. So by definition they shouldn't have used it in the FA Cup Final either... there was no logic to it at all. Just like there isn't for the decision to use it.

SJG99 wrote:

Bush wrote:

SJG99 wrote:Oh and VAR can't "only be used at Prem grounds". Wembley had it for the 2019 FA Cup Final and Spurs were already back on White Hart Lane then.

What was Wembley at the start of the 2018/19 season? A premier league ground.

Swansea were robbed in the FA cup against Man City. Why was their televised match not using VAR yet the other all premier league cup games live that weekend did use VAR? Because yes Swansea isn’t a Premier league ground. Last season premier league grounds trailed VAR in the cups in preparation to it being in place for this season.

What was it by the end of the season? Not a Premier League ground. So by definition they shouldn't have used it in the FA Cup Final either... there was no logic to it at all. Just like there isn't for the decision to use it.

Im not sure you are getting it. All premier league grounds at the start of the season had VAR cameras set up. Wembley was set up at the start of the season. why not use it for the cup finals? like I said if it had been in use for the county's game there is a very good chance county would be a league one team right now. VAR isn't the problem its the users and the rules and regs put into place with it. If it was just used to clarify if a goal was offside then it wouldn't be an issue. You are either offside or you are not. just like the ball either crosses the line or it don't.

The annoying and time consuming aspect is when the panel views it on screen but then doesn't make a decision. It is handing it back to the referee that causes confusion and delay. In my view the referee should just be told what the decision is....... offside (no goal) or onside (goal). Likewise penalty/no penalty. Make the VAR panel acountable and they may make better decisions. Passing the buck is not acceptable.
If the referee calls for a judgement he has to just go with that judgement. If a panel halts the game to review some event then make a decision and the ref can't overrule.

Bush wrote: Im not sure you are getting it. All premier league grounds at the start of the season had VAR cameras set up. Wembley was set up at the start of the season. why not use it for the cup finals? like I said if it had been in use for the county's game there is a very good chance county would be a league one team right now. VAR isn't the problem its the users and the rules and regs put into place with it. If it was just used to clarify if a goal was offside then it wouldn't be an issue. You are either offside or you are not. just like the ball either crosses the line or it don't.

You've answered your own question re where it was implemented, cameras were used at some grounds in the FA Cup but never in League One or Two. So it wasn't used for the League Two play off final. It was used at Wembley in the FA Cup semis in 2018 as well, which had nothing to do with a Premier League trial the year after. Also amused they're claiming it's the cost of the technology, which is just existing tv cameras - you won't see Huddersfield with VAR this season because Sky will only use their second tier number of cameras in the first place, not because the ground "isn't equipped". Apparently (I didn't watch much last season) The Championship already uses goal-line tech (which actually is an additional installation), which is a system which I have no problem with due to its binary nature.

VAR very much IS the problem, as it's unnecessary and contrary to claims doesn't improve decisions. The two main issues with poor officiating at the moment are the refusal to flag obvious offsides where VAR exists which is directly attributable to VAR, and handballs, which are attributable to a clarification (ahem) of the handball law rendered necessary to remove the "deliberate" interpretation which prevents VAR being clear evidence (because otherwise there's an element of doubt about intent that no number of replays can identify). Both of those undermine refs irrespective of how well they do their jobs, and we've seen in numerous games since the 2018 World Cup that refs repeatedly give poor decisions when told to review what they saw. The ref in the World Cup Final watched the video, left, turned around and went back, and then decided to give a penalty - on what planet the original decision could be "clear and obvious" when the ref needed to check that many times, I don't know. It's a nonsense.

Hilariously, the Premier League's head of refs has already announced they'll ignore pretty much everything about the newly implemented handball law from the 2019 Law changes, in order to prevent obviously accidental or "won" handballs like the one in the Champions League Final, which means they're not even using the FIFA-approved Laws of the Game any more.