By Davidde Corran
June 4th 2009 @ 2:53am
Related coverage
By not acting on goal-line technology, FIFA are crossing the line
Arsenal's players react after the oppening goal from FC Porto's Bruno Alves (not seen) during their Group G Champions League soccer match at the Dragao stadium in Porto, Portugal, Wednesday Dec. 10, 2008. AP Photo/Paulo Duarte
So another FA Cup final on a poor Wembley pitch and another Chelsea game involving a controversial refereeing decision. In the end, Florent Malouda’s disallowed second-half goal was meaningless, but the thought has been nagging away at me all week. What if it had mattered?
If Everton had managed an equaliser, I’m guessing we wouldn’t have spent the week talking about Guss Hiddink’s shiny new watch.
Instead, it would have been goal-line technology on the agenda.
First let me be clear, due to the speed and ferocity with which Malouda struck his shot, there is no way referee Howard Webb or his assistant could have seen whether the ball crossed the line or not.
For once England’s ‘best referee’ wasn’t to blame.
With the referees not being at fault, one has to ask how could this have been prevented? For many the answer is simply goal-line technology.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter isn’t so sure.
In 2005, the world football governing body toyed with the idea in the lead up to the World Cup in Germany. Microchip technology was tested at the Under-17 World championships in Peru that year.
The way it worked was that the football had a microchip inside, so when it crossed the goal-line, the referee was alerted directly and instantaneously by a bleeper-type system rather than any video replays being used.
This was followed by further experiments with similar types of goal-line technology in 2007, including at that year’s Club World Cup in Japan.
Since then the movement has petered out, with FIFA declaring in a statement that they would not be considering the use of goal-line or video technology “until further notice.”
Michel Platini is another man opposed to the introduction of the technology into football (it’s probably the only thing he and Blatter agree on other then the EPL being too rich).
UEFA have a different take on proceedings and over the last couple years have been trialling an experiment with four assistant referees. The two extra officials stand beside either goal and look for discrepancies in the penalty area and to watch if a ball crosses the line.
This approach is now going to be trialled in next seasons Europa League.
Frankly I’m not convinced.
One of the key arguments for FIFA ruling out the use of video technology is that there must be one process for officiating football at all levels of the game. So what is good enough for the World Cup should be good enough for your kick-about Sunday leagues.
With there already being a referee shortage at all levels of the game, how can you expect Football Associations the world over to manage the need for another two referees across all levels of the game.
Dare I say it, Mark Shield we may need you back.
In terms of video technology, I’m entirely opposed to it.
Football is not like cricket or tennis. A game of football is both significantly shorter and has a natural, mostly unbroken, flow to it.
An instantaneous decision using goal-line technology on the other hand is a different matter. If the technology works, then it won’t interfere with the natural flow of the game and would increase the integrity of officiating.
The designers of the goal-line system used at the Club World Cup in 2007, Adidas and Cairo, say their technology is reliable and ready for use.
For their part, FIFA argue the technology isn’t 100 percent perfect. Even if that’s true, Blatter isn’t encouraging any further development and research to make it so.
Once again the argument that goal-line technology can’t be instituted across all levels of the game pops up from FIFA.
My response is simple, they play football a few hundred meters down the road from my house every weekend and the referee there doesn’t have a wireless headset to communicate with his assistants.
But nobody minds.
There is too much money on the line at the highest levels of the game for such a significant irregularity to go on unchecked. Most of all, football’s biggest stakeholders, the fans, deserve better.
In 1966 when England famously beat West Germany 4-2, with thanks to a controversial ‘goal-line’ decision, they didn’t have the technology available to them to get this decision right. It would seem we now do.
Like banning automatic weapons after a violent shooting, it’s all too easy to act after the fact. But by then it’s always too late.
To perceive a potential problem before it occurs, and then act to prevent it, takes real courage and leadership.
Sepp Blatter, the ball is in your court. And if you don’t think it matters, then just ask Franz Beckenbauer.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(10)
Kurt said | June 4th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
This is a reasonable idea as long as West Germany are retrospectively awarded the 1966 World Cup. Only seems fair.
Towser said | June 4th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Ongoing issue & as mentioned above by Kurt has been going on forever. On one hand I agree in a match there are crucial potential match turning incidents like was the ball over the line & penalties,offside decisions.& you could argue that allowing a coach to call for a video replay of these incidents twice a match is fair. He would only make the call if it was absolutely necessary ,having only 2 chances. However given that this could only happen at the top,because of cost it would not therefore be in place for the vast majority of football matches throughout the world. Of which you can imagine on a weekly basis there is a massive number. So lets presume it is allowed at the top(2 video calls by each coach per match) how long before it filters down to lower levels demanding the same rights & causes dissension in matches with the Ref on the receiving end.
I guess it all boils down to whether you see football as a sport that incorporates as part of its appeal & therefore passion human error. When I’m at a match I spend a great deal of time calling the ref a wanker as do most around me. Bring in technology apart from the fact that it is elitist as mentioned above,& you start to bring in a clinical precise element.
Whilst at times I feel aggrieved at Referees decisions & would gladly bring back public flogging & stocks for referees in the heat of battle,when I settle back into the trials & tribulations of normal everyday living it was just another match. To be placed in the Football bank memory,but still a football match.
Pippinu said | June 4th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
1. I agree that reliance on video technology would most probably break up the natural flow of the game (although I suspect that most of us exaggerate the extent to which it most likely would do that).
2. The current FIFA aversion to creating too large a gulf between the officiiating of games at the elite level on the one hand and amongst pub teams on the other, is a noble goal, bordering on romantic. I know in A-League games (at the Dome in particular), they never show the replay of offside decisions, or similar decisions, mostly to save the pathetic linesmen some embarrassment because they nearly always get it wrong (and always to the detriment of MV). I see a day when all fans at the game, will be demanding to see replays of pretty much everything, and if they end up being appeased, we will end up with this dichotomy of video evidence being available in a split second, but a reluctance to use it to improve officiating. In the long run, this position is probably untenable (especially with the technology getting better and better).
Rob said | June 4th 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
I agree with the notion that goal line technology can and should be used at the elite level. Certainly, video technology would hinder the flow of the game, and make our mistrust of officials justified in ways that would further undermine the position of the referee (a job that is thankless at the best of times), so I don’t agree that video referrals should be allowed. But if the microchip in the ball works, why not use it?
dasilva said | June 4th 2009 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
I’m for controlled usage of video technology.
Only use it in situation where the game flow is not distrupted.
Such as all goals should be check for offsides (or fouls)
A goal is a natural stoppage of the game. This would also allow linesman to give the attacker the benefit of the doubt more often as they know that any incorrect offside decision will not lead to a goal.
Other usage of video technology is like checking whether the goalkeeper is off the line during penalty, checking any penalty decision via video referee etc.
Restrict video replay to usage only during stoppage of the game.
Pippinu said | June 4th 2009 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
das
to take that point even further (and I’m in agreement), I’d like to see no offside calls made unless a goal has resulted, i.e. only check for offside if a goal has been scored, if necessary, otherwise, just play on – why stop the play for offside?
This will immediately get rid of defenders trying to referee the game when they think a striker is about to sneak in behind them – which I really don’t like at all.
Daniel Phan said | June 4th 2009 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
Davidde, as human beings, we respond to the envionment around us in the best way we see fit, referees too are human, and can’t always make perfect judgements…..
(As you can see, I only just scraped through philosophy in university)
Saying that, technology has aided and improved the quality of many things outside of football, and you have a very legitimate point, right in fact but the repercussions may harm the nature of the game.
I believe FIFA are cautious in implemented this technology as it will pave the way for further technological aids for referees, effectively stamping out the role of the tradtional referee. Nevertheless, its a great innovation, but must be used with caution. Did you get my email Davidde? (jokes!)
Greg Russell said | June 4th 2009 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
Davidde,
Instead of writing for The Roar I often just email a friend in Melbourne. This was what I wrote to him on the FA Cup final:
“Saw highlights on news tonight. The disallowed goal did not matter (3-1 rather than 2-1) but the point is it could have mattered. Was ridiculous. My criterion for when technology should be adopted to assist officials is when TV replays instantly show the whole world that without a doubt a grave mistake has been made. As the old line goes, it makes no sense that billions of viewers around the world have a better view than the person in the middle who is making the decisions and should have the best view. Understanding that one cannot expect change to occur instantly, I have given FIFA some time to act on this but for over a decade now they have dithered: rather than doing the obvious they have mucked around with putting computer chips in balls, etc. So i give up now. When they have got their act together, I will take interest again.”
So I have taken exactly the same issue out of the FA Cup final as you, and like you I have reasoned that the fact it did not have grave consequences is actually a reason for doing something: there are no “we wuz robbed” agendas to distort the argument, so better to take action while there is no emotion than to wait until an incident like this where there is.
We are not in complete agreement, e.g. you do not want video replays, whereas I do not mind them (on the grounds that it would take only 10 seconds in instances like this before the message was conveyed). But these are minor details that it is not worth splitting hairs over. I am also happy to go to chip technology if it’s 98 or 99 per cent correct (as you imply) – this is by many times better than the current situation.
Finally, last week I had with you a discussion about Australian football needing to be different because of the extreme competitiveness of the local sporting market. I see the above issue as a manifestation of that. In this part of the world we are accustomed to video replays in cricket and NRL, and against this backdrop we find errors in football like this one to be unacceptable. This is a way in which Australia is different to the majority of the footballing world, where people will have seen very little or no use of video replays to assist in officiating (perhaps in tennis only). Maybe now you see a bit more keenly the sort of thing I was getting at in my comments last week.
Anyway, well done on bringing this up (and I admire that you were able to parlay it into a whole article – that’s skill!).
Captain Random said | June 4th 2009 @ 11:26pm | Report comment
As referred to in the article, the argument that the standard of officiating needs to be the same from the top to the bottom is rubbish. I’m happy if my pub team gets ONE assistant referee for our games.
Davidde Corran said | June 5th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Towser managers have enough power as it is. Coaching form the sidelines is a recent development and I’d hate to see even more power given to them. In fact it was only at the 1990 World Cup that it really began (once upon a time they just sat in the stands). I have no problem with the situation as it stands with managers and assistants coaching from the sidelines but that is as far as it should go. Football survived just fine for over 100 years without sideline coaching.
Greg you touch on a great point in saying “it makes no sense that billions of viewers around the world have a better view than the person in the middle who is making the decisions and should have the best view”.
Instead of blaming referees we should be doing whatever we can to assist them within the spirit and confines of the game. We all need to be accountable for the way we treat referees (the media included), they need to be professionalised and technology needs to be considered. Though again, I’m strictly opposed to anything which doesn’t fit within the natural flow of the game.
Finally on your last point Greg I don’t see our experiences with video refereeing having any significant impact on this point. I believe the majority of fans and football commentators around the world support some form of video technology or goal-line technology. It’s just that Sepp Blatter is strongly opposed to it.