FIFA's decision not to introduce either goal line nor any other kind of technology at any level would, on the face of it, seem to be a ludicrous decision right up there with Sepp Blatter's most wacko pronouncements.
We see so many games irrevocably altered by rotten refereeing decisions, decisions that can cost clubs dearly, as Birmingham may argue after this weekend, so surely anything which helps the officials to get it right should be welcomed with open arms. We're told the referees, players and managers all want it to happen and the pressure for technology to determine if a ball has crossed the line has never been greater.
Advocates have pointed out how it has worked successfully in many other sports. Regardless though, it has been ruled out conclusively.
Why?
It'd be easy to say it's a bonkers organisation led by a bonkers president, easy to say, largely because it's true. Blatter utters pronouncements on what seem to be passing whims and fancies but in actual fact FIFA has not changed football very much since its inception. While in recent years there have been a few (by many, unwanted) rule tweaks regarding tackling and the change in the back pass rule, someone standing on the terraces in 1910 would recognize the 2010 game as essentially the same. In short, for all the president's madness, FIFA don't do really revolution. And introducing technology to aid decision-making would be exactly that. Revolutionary.
Before the era of intense TV coverage, refereeing errors were less obvious and under less scrutiny. Now, with every game filmed in detail, we are only too conscious of refereeing inadequacies but their mistakes are no more or less outrageous than they have ever been.
We now have every contentious call pored over and dissected for a week or more. Without even trying to put some technology in place, at least to decide what is and isn't a goal, FIFA risk undermining the credibility of the game. However, introducing technology would potentially undermine it to an even greater extent.
Whisper it quietly, it's probably for the best, not because as some say it would remove the culture of debate in the game, rather it'd probably increase it as contentious interpretations of video footage would still be debated endlessly. But there is part of the problem.
Proposals to simply bring in goal-line technology to judge when the ball has crossed the line are being naive. Goal-line tech, though clearly great for sorting out 'goals' such as Liam Ridgewells at the weekend, it would do nothing to stop Thierry Henry-style cheating.
If goal-line tech was brought in, it would not be long before it was being demanded for decisions all over the pitch. Indeed, it would be inevitable after the next major Henry-type incident.
Such partial technological introduction would mean a side could lose a game by having a goal ruled out by the goal line tech but concede an offside goal at the other end which couldn't be put right by technology. This would be very unfair. Why can we tell what is a goal and what isn't, but not who is offside or who has handled the ball would be the demand. Soon enough, the cries would go up for comprehensive video technology for all decisions and they would be irresistible.
And that would be awful.
Not all decisions can be quickly called even when you watch them back time and again. What would a referee do - stand there watching re-runs for a few minutes trying to work out what actually happened? Would the crowd be able to see? He'd be under incredible pressure with 75,000 fans baying for a favourable decision. And many times he would still be thought to have made the wrong call. If it was done by a fourth official in the stands, who would be policing the accuracy of their judgements and where would it leave the referees? They'd become little more than requesters of TV film.
There are so many contentious decisions in almost every a game, even if it only took 10 seconds to check them out, the game could become horribly fractured.
In high-stakes games no referee could let a goal stand without first checking the video. Any strong tackle would have to be scrutinized. No tight offside decisions could be made because the fear would be that it was provably a wrong call. So we'd have endless incidents where a striker escapes the defence and would have to be let go until he has scored and then the officials would check the footage. The entire dynamic of the game would be altered.
It's easy to see a scenario developing where a referee would become addicted to replays for fear of getting any important decision wrong. Players would constantly be pleading for the ref to consult the footage and if the ref didn't accede to their demands and was later shown to be wrong, the next time he'd give in straight away for fear of being made to look foolish.
It'd be a disaster. It'd give the players the whip hand. A side under pressure would keep stalling games by requesting replays of fouls and since so many things in football are contentious and unclear, the scope for breaking a game up would be vast. Was it a corner or not? Did he foul him or did he dive? Who touched the ball last? Was that tackle fair or not? Weak refs would rely on it too heavily and those who fancied themselves stronger would ignore it and then look stupid when proved wrong. Thus the officials would be utterly undermined. The new boss would be TV director.
If it was brought in for the top leagues, the lower leagues would rightly complain that their games are just as important to get right. So there'd have to be cameras at all grounds for every game right down into the Conference. Who would foot the cost of that along with the staff to use it? They would need several cameras too - it's no good just having one on the half way line - without extensive coverage, many decisions would be no clearer than with the naked eye. It would be no small undertaking to equip every game played with enough tech and people to use it.
Anyway, we've loved football for 130 years without such technology. We've all had to just swallow dodgy decisions. Sometimes the bear eats you, sometimes you eat the bear. It's an imperfect world and football is an expression of that. Football is at core a flawed game. It is full of mistakes and misjudgement and in that it mirrors our wider lives. Frustration, injustice and grievance are all part of football's powerful battery of emotions.
Introducing technology into football would be like opening Pandora's Box. Once it was done, the game would be forever changed and it could never go back to being the game we fell in love with. Lack of technology has not exactly made football unpopular has it? And don't forget, if we'd had such technology in 1966 we may not have won a World Cup.
FIFA and its clown-like President remains a laughing stock but even a stopped clock is right twice a day and this is one ruling that albeit accidentally they've got right.
The Laughing Stock Has It Right This Time
Now let's hear what you've got to say about this item... or anything else happening in the world of football. Send in your opinions, rants, praise or abuse to: theeditor@football365.com
Other Articles
- The Laughing Stock Has It Right This Time
- Johnny Goes Ballistic About...Media Stars
- It Must Be Us, Us, Us, Not Me, Me, Me
- Johnny Goes Ballistic About Volleys...
- Let's Talk About
SexFootball, Baby... - 'Arry Out, Guus In For Tottenham...
- Losing Is Really Not That Drastic...
- Stay Young, Free And Single Lads...
- Whatever Happened To...Free Kicks?
- You've Got To Love Throwback Rooney...
Your Comments
ProudPotter
"Goal-line technology should be introduced because it is fundamental to the purpose of the game - scoring a goal - and is a matter of fact, in that the ball has either crossed the line or not. Replays for all other incidents would not work, for two big reasons:
1) As touched on in this article, too many decisions are matters of opinion, not fact, and no number of replays will change that. The most obvious is "deliberate" handball (are we going to employ experts in body language as well? How exactly can you determine with 100% certainty if an act is deliberate?) but there is often endless debate about whether a certain tackle is a foul, or whether there was "enough contact" for a striker to go down in the penalty area.
2) Every single sport that has successfully introduced video replays goes to them when play has already stopped; on one level the question being asked is "how are we going to restart?" Football simply doesn't work like that. If a referee stops play to review a tackle and decides it wasn't a foul, how on earth do you restart? If play had continued, the attacking team could have scored anyway, or even the defending team could have broken away and scored. If the referee leaves it until play stops naturally, it could be several minutes before the decision is reviewed, which would obviously lead to all sorts of problems of its own.
Both of these issues seem pretty obvious to me and it constantly surprises me that people call for the introduction of technology - and I know this article isn't doing that - without attempting to address them. It shows a distinct lack of thought from people about the issues they're pronouncing on."
scotto
"Wow.My mind is completely changed and pedro mendes didn`t score at united on "that" famous day.Keep the cameras out of football."
dow_
"That was a great article. I was all for video technology until I read this but its really made me think twice. I still think a challenge system like in tennis would be the way to go. Each manager should be allowed one challenge per game. I know you couldnt implement it across all levels of football but if a compromise could be made it I think it would work. No chance of it happening with Blatter in charge though"
shakes
"That's it John Nic. Bury your head in the sand. Let's continue to watch football run in a completely anachronistic and backwards fashion.
Technology SHOULD be introduced to sort out any contentious decisions to do with goals/penalty decisions. However, it is up to the coach of the team on the receiving end of the possibly bad decision to choose to use the technology AND they only get say one or two "passes" in a game to use the technology. If they use the technology and they are wrong, they lose a "pass". If they are correct to have questioned the decision they keep their "pass" to use the technology again. What's wrong with that? How is that going to slow the game down?
Instead of neanderthals like yourself and Blatter covering your ears and yelling "LAH LAH LAH", maybe we should see some forward-thinking and rational people step into the breach and IMPROVE the game of football. Technology has quite blatantly improved sports like cricket/rugby/tennis. There is absolutely no doubt technology will improve football. There is far too much at stake. Things have changed... football needs to change too. It's a joke what happens week in week out in the world of refereeing decisions. One bad refereeing decision can cause financial havoc for teams. Take your hands off your zimmer frame for a second and wipe the cobwebs out of your eyes and get the wax out of your ears and SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE."
anthonyk07
"It's good to see so many people agreeing with John. We really should boot that bad technology out of the greatest game in the world ever. I mean if we introduce technology the costs will be so high (average cost of a microchip = £1 average cost of a players wages in prem = 20k??), we will open up pandora's box and next thing you know we will have referee's with expensive microphones, video replay panels and the likes. That can never be good for football. No we must stand still and not improve the game because it's the bestest already. "
slughk
"I agree with John and I think his points are well argued by both himself and other posters. One other question for the pro-goal line tech crowd - is it really worth all the money, time and effort to implement such a scheme (anyone who thinks it will be cheap and simple is kidding themselves) when ultimately, in the Premiership at least, the issue of a ball crossing the line unnoticed by the referee and his assistants crops up once or twice a season at most? It's not like tennis where you get several debatable line calls every set. Goal line technology is such a massive first step into the realms of technology-based adjudication when compared to the amount of problem incidents that actually arise every season."
drpernik
"Is this what you want English football to become? A 10 minute break for every questionable decision, with no guarantee referees get it right in the end anyway?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSIykYoM260
For anyone who looks to American sports as evidence of how great video technology can be for the game, look no further than this clip. For Oregon to get the ball in this situation: Ball has to go 10 yards (yellow line) before Oregon touches it and they have to recover the (American) football. Neither of these things occurred. The fact that makes American football ideal for video replay is that there are so many natural starts and stops to the game. If you introduce video replays, it won't be long before you don't recognize your sport anymore. Football's a beautiful game in large part because you don't F*** with it."
Blueheaven
"I think we should have some sort of technology on crucial decisions there is so much at stake in certain games and bad decisions have sent teams down and prevented others reaching finals.
4th Official can view the screen and the play at all times and can buzz the Ref if he see's something that ought to be acted upon.
Each Team has three appeals per game where they feel the ref has got it wrong 4th official reviews and decides on the verdict with the ref.
Play it on the screens around the ground so the crowd and the players can see what is being reviewed.
Reviews for goal line and penalties (foul and handball) only.
It will be for Prem and UCL league only where such poor decisions could cost a club Millions. Play off games for promotion from the Championship need it also due to the money at stake.
Blatter is an idiot, what is this guy doing running the game? if technology is brought in he can't use dodgy refs anymore to push his least favourite teams out of the UCL. "
insani69
"rule changes. backpass, six second rule, no two touches at free kicks, active offside, leaving the pitch after treatment, and thats just since the 70s. you think backpass rule, two touches and offside re defination werent individually revolutionary?! what a joke of an article. research. try it out sometime."
stephenjwz
"So because refs might still get other things wrong, these decisions shouldn't be done right? I appreciate the 'delay' argument against video replays, but there's no need for delay with goal line tech. I don't buy the 'debate is fun' argument for any decision, but in this instance it's particularly irrelevant as there shouldn't be debate - the ball either crosses the line or does not."
All comments on this story