Goal Line Technology
Saturday, March 13, 2010
FIFA president Sepp Blatter has defended the decision to rule out goal-line technology on the grounds of cost and keeping the game the same throughout all levels of football.
FIFA, supported by the Welsh and Northern Irish Football Associations, voted at the International FA Board at the weekend to block any further experiments with technology.
Blatter said on the FIFA website: ''The application of modern technologies can be very costly, and therefore not applicable on a global level. The universality of the game: one of the main objectives of FIFA is to protect the universality of the game of association football.
''This means that the game must be played in the same way no matter where you are in the world. If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV.''
Blatter said goal-line technology would lead to the introduction of video replays which would disrupt the rhythm of the game.
''If the IFAB had approved goal-line technology, what would prevent the approval of technology for other aspects of the game?'' he added. ''Every decision in every area of the pitch would soon be questioned.
''No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?
''It is often the case that, even after a slow-motion replay, ten different experts will have 10 different opinions on what the decision should have been. Fans love to debate any given incident in a game. It is part of the human nature of our sport.''
Blatter added that FIFA's goal is to improve the quality of refereeing, which is why experiments such as with additional referees or the role of the fourth official will continue.
Labels: Technology
posted @ 7:03 PM,
,
FIFA and Technology
Thursday, March 11, 2010
They think it’s all over...it is now’ stands as one of the most famous lines in commentary history.
It also lends itself rather nicely to FIFA’s latest decision on goal-line technology, considering that Kenneth Wolstenholme’s remark during England’s 4-2 World Cup triumph over West Germany in 1966 featured Sir Geoff Hurst’s ‘goal’ that never was. Unless you’re an ardent England fan, that is.
Congregating in Zurich on Saturday, FIFA president Sepp Blatter chaired the AGM in which the International Football Association Board (IFAB) declared, after more than five years of trials and debate, that they would not pursue goal-line technology.
Why the door has been closed
If you presumed this decision was reached without any input from these shores, you’d be very much mistaken. The IFAB is actually made up of representatives from the FAs of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who all receive a vote each; FIFA then have a further four votes. While the English and Scottish FAs advocated the use of technology, Wales and Northern Ireland did not. Six votes are deemed enough to pull the plug.
Following the meeting, FIFA’s general secretary, Jerome Valcke, said: “The door is closed. The decision was not to go ahead with technology at all. It was a clear statement made by the majority of IFAB.
“If we start with goal-line technology then any part of the pitch will be a potential space where you could put technology to see if the ball was in or out, whether it was a penalty and then you end up with video replays. Let’s keep the game as it is.”
Just bad luck?
People aren’t on the pitch but the pursuit of technology in football really is all over, folks. Yet on the very day this announcement was made Birmingham’s Liam Ridgewell was wrongly denied a perfectly good goal against Portsmouth in the FA Cup because the linesman believed it hadn’t crossed the line. The technophobes at FIFA must be cursing their luck at the unfortunate timing.
But then maybe it wasn’t just bad luck considering almost every year there seems to be a contentious goal-line decision to discuss. Freddy Sears’ goal that wasn’t given for Crystal Palace against Bristol City in August comes to mind, Fulham’s David Healy also wrongly had a late equaliser against Middleborough in 2007 chalked off and then, the worst of the lot, Pedro Mendes’ spectacular goal for Tottenham Hotspur in 2005 that Manchester United’s Roy Carroll definitely didn’t save. Curiously, the match report said it finished 0-0.
Conservatism
Such awful and transparent mistakes should not be tolerated and FIFA’s rather woeful ‘let’s keep the game as it is’ mantra just does not cut it. The developments to technology in sport over the last decade have been unprecedented with technology successfully incorporated into numerous other sports including cricket, rugby and tennis.
Admittedly, the fluidity of football does not draw many parallels with cricket, for example, but that does not mean technology should be dismissed out of hand. It seems FIFA and this ‘majority’ of the IFAB fear that the introduction of goal-line technology would open the door for other more sinister modifications to creep into our beautiful game, and have instead thought it better just to slam it shut to any potential innovations. Such a conservative outlook from those who decide on football’s future is more than a little concerning.
If this policy had been adopted in the past football would never have seen the ‘back’ of the unpunished back-pass, or introduced a new and supposedly improved offside ruling that no one really understands. OK, so the latter is probably not the best example but, by declaring an end to any hopes of introducing technology, the opportunity to improve the game disappears with it.
Goal-line technology would be beneficial
Purists will argue football is fine as it is. They’d probably be right, but what if it could be better? Those who point to the controversy that human error causes as an argument against technology though are mostly certainly not.
If technology was used for every decision then football as a spectacle would be ruined. But if it is used to eradicate mistakes made when deciding something as simple as to whether or not the ball has crossed the goal-line surely it would be beneficial for everyone, Roy Carroll being the one notable exception. Football’s bureaucrats are running scared because of what goal-line cameras or a micro-chip in the ball might lead to, not because of the suggestion itself. However, if they make the decisions, why can’t they just stop there?
Fans around the globe must surely all agree that there is nothing more frustrating than, when watching the team you support on television, seeing the officials make a grave error that costs your team the match. Some of these mistakes we have to accept but phantom or disallowed ‘goals’ should not be one of them, especially when a yes or no answer can be reached in a matter of seconds.
However, and rather ironically, the real sufferers here will actually be the officials themselves. Birmingham boss Alex McLeish, speaking after Saturday’s game, makes the point: “There must be stringent rules for this level for referees to be top match-fit and obviously the eyesight is a huge factor.
“But sometimes it happens that quickly that you can see why assistants make mistakes, which is why they should bring in technology.
“You don't have to disrupt the game throughout the 90 minutes and make it boring for the crowd, but at key moments like that I think they're actually doing the officials a disservice.”
Steve Bennett’s assistant on Saturday got berated by Ridgewell following his error, and on that historic day in 1966 Tofik Bakhramov quickly became surrounded by players from both sides as he dithered over whether Hurst’s shot had crossed the line. The scene verged on the ridiculous and, under such pressure, the Azerbaijani linesman’s decision was surely based on guesswork.
If guessing is all we can hope for, than surely goal-line decisions should be taken out of human hands. Those who have the power to change the laws of the game have dismissed this suggestion but, and this is a big but, if another bit of ‘bad luck’ takes place in a certain final this summer, it might not be all over after all. If it is though, football will continue to suffer. {#}
Labels: FIFA, Technology
posted @ 3:27 PM,
,
Anxieties Over Ruling Out Technology
Monday, March 8, 2010
Fifa's general secretary, Jérôme Valcke, admits he hopes the decision to rule out goal-line technology does not come back to haunt him in the World Cup final this summer.
The International FA Board meeting in Zurich voted against continuing any further experiments with goal-line technology and effectively ended any chance of video replays coming into the game. The decision was swiftly followed by a legitimate Birmingham goal being ruled out during their FA Cup quarter-final defeat at Portsmouth.
The Birmingham manager Alex McLeish said afterwards that he supported the introduction of technology to assist officials. "My stance has always been that they should," McLeish said. "That is a frustrating decision by Fifa because I think they are doing their officials a disservice.
"It's not easy for their guys to see it in a split second. We feel he should have seen that but in a split second, you see offside decisions [given].
Valcke said the game should be prepared to accept referees' mistakes but admitted he hoped the ruling would not be shown up in this summer's World Cup in South Africa. Valcke said: "Questions will always come, we just hope they will not come in the final of the World Cup. Technology should not enter into the game, It was a clear, clear statement made by the majority of the board. The main part of the game should be humans – players and referees.
"Whatever are the mistakes – and, yes, there are mistakes – people will review the match and discuss what happened but there was a clear statement that technology should not enter in the game.
"If we start with goal-line technology then any part of the game and pitch will be a potential space where you could put in place technology to see if the ball was in or out, whether it was a penalty and then you end up with video replays. The door is closed."
The former leading referee Graham Poll today said he was "disappointed but not surprised" by the decision. Talking about football's reticence to embrace the technology on Radio 5 Live's Sportsweek programme, Poll said: "It's probably because of the level of arrogance. They feel that we have the best game, it's our game, the number one game and it's the same as experimenting with things like sin-bins – 'Oh no, that's a rugby idea we wouldn't do that'.
"It's like having a look at a different method of offsides – 'Oh, we won't do that, hockey have done that, we have to be different, we're football'. It's hugely disappointing.
"And to hear one of the reasons as 'Well, it's what people like to talk about in pubs, think back to 1966. Was the ball over the line or not?' The world has moved on massively since then.
"In 1966 we didn't have the possibility of seeing immediately whether the ball was a goal or wasn't a goal. It's changed completely and it's really affecting the confidence and respect that match officials now have."
The Scottish Football Association's chief executive, Gordon Smith, a vocal supporter of technology, said the development of two different goal-line systems had been a waste of time and money. Smith said: "There was no problem with the technology. For me the sad thing is that decision could have been made four years ago.
"It's not based on the fact that technology's not good enough, just an ideological idea that technology does not belong in football."
The FA and SFA had both voted in favour of technology but were defeated by six votes to two – Fifa's four votes plus those of the Welsh and Irish FAs.
The board will decide in May whether to pursue the system of having an extra two officials behind each goal-line.
The FA chief executive Ian Watmore had also been in favour of goal-line technology and said: "In the end it came down to a difference of opinion about whether you believe the future of football involves technology or not.
"But some of the arguments were very powerful and persuasive and we have to accept them.
"The credibility of football is always improved if you get the critical decisions right. I would have liked to try it out in the real game to see whether it is good or not."
Labels: FIFA, Technology
posted @ 10:02 AM,
,
