This is an article I wrote today about why football should follow other major sports that have introduced video technology. First published here 17/01/11.
Football’s powers that be need to realise what those in other sports have known for years – technology works.
After all, in just about every other major sport – rugby, cricket and tennis to name a few –officials use video technology to help them make important decisions. In this area, it looks as though football has got a lot of catching up to do.
Firstly, we need to be clear what is at issue here. What we’re discussing is goal-line technology, specifically cameras on the goal line that would be used to help the officials decide whether or not the ball had crossed the line. Perhaps existing cameras could also be used to look for incidents in the build-up that would rule out a goal, much like the system currently in place in rugby.
In either case, it would be up to the referee to decide when to refer a decision to a television match official. The referee would also be able to instruct this official to look for any specific incidents in the build-up, such as a handball, that would make a goal invalid.
Leading the small minority opposing the introduction of this technology are the individuals in charge of FIFA. This is an organisation that supposedly governs the football world in the best interests of the game, and yet those at its head have failed to implement changes that almost everyone else agrees would benefit the sport.
In August last year, FIFA President Sepp Blatter announced that goal-line technology would be discussed at the International Football Association Board (IFAB) meeting in October. Once again, however, this has failed to produce any concrete results.
So, why has there still been no progress on this issue? To try to find out, let’s look at the objections that have been raised to the introduction of goal-line technology.
Firstly, we can examine the objection that is raised on the grounds of inclusiveness. It goes something like this: clubs below the top level would not be able to afford to introduce this technology, therefore it should not be introduced at all.
It is certainly true that a lot of clubs wouldn’t be able to implement these changes. However, to base an argument on these grounds ignores the fact that a two-tier system already exists in football. The financial disparity between Premiership and grassroots clubs is already so great that it’s hard to see what difference a couple of extra cameras will make.
We can now examine one of the most oft-repeated claims made by opponents of this change. This essentially says that introducing goal-line technology would in some way damage the spirit of the game, and ruin it as a spectacle for supporters.
To decide if this is true, we only need to look at the situation in other sports. Rugby, cricket and tennis have all brought in electronic review systems in recent years. In all of these cases, it would appear that the use of technology has added to, rather than detracted from, spectators’ enjoyment of their sport. In all of these cases, fans have embraced a change that they know will increase fairness and transparency in decision-making. I see no reason to believe that football fans will be any less accepting.
Finally we come to the assertion that mistakes by officials are part of what makes football so exciting. This excitement, so the argument goes, would be diminished through the introduction of technology, while the time it would take to refer a decision to a television referee would disrupt the flow of the game.
Well, I’m sure the Irish football fans who saw their team denied a place at the World Cup by Thierry Henry’s blatant handball were pretty ‘excited’ about it. The fact is, decisions like that are too important to be left to chance. And it’s hard to see how referrals would disrupt the flow of the game given that, by definition, the game stops when the ball is in the goal. Given that television companies have time to screen endless replays of every incident, it is hard to believe that referring the occasional decision to a television match official would be any more disruptive.
The fact that mistakes as serious as Henry’s handball, and Frank Lampard’s goal-that-wasn’t-except-that-it-clearly-was, are allowed to stand brings the game into disrepute. And failing to implement a system that would eliminate such errors is making football the laughing stock of the sporting world.
So, where does all of this leave FIFA? For many, it will surely only confirm their conception of a group of individuals completely divorced from the realities of the sport they govern. FIFA has the chance to rid itself of this image, and it has the duty to at least consider changes that have such widespread support in the footballing world. Zurich, are you listening?
No comments:
Post a Comment