Blowing full-time on football’s video blackout
Columnist By Luke Doherty, 21 Jun 2012 Luke Doherty is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- England Football, euro 2012, football, Ukraine football
John Terry pulls the ball back in the controversial England Ukraine disallowed goal farce (AFP)
Related coverage
Pierluigi Collina is a man greatly respected in football circles. As a referee he was second to none. But the problem with whistleblowers is that they love to be in control.
Video technology doesn’t limit that control, but it sure has the ability to make the man in the middle and his ever growing cast of colleagues look silly.
Read more about this dramatic Euro 2012 goal
Collina addressed a “leaders in football” conference overnight where the topic of goal-line technology was high on the agenda following England’s match against Euro 2012 co-hosts Ukraine.
Ukraine was denied a goal in the 62nd minute, with a desperate John Terry ruled to have cleared the ball off the line.
Collina argued that “the technological experiment hasn’t found the solution and the human experiment has.”
“I think the goal-line can be easily controlled by two additional assistant referees,” he said.
The only problem is that this incident had an assistant referee just metres away. He wasn’t out of position or unable to see the flight of the ball. He was standing right on the chalk.
Social media told me yesterday that the poor official couldn’t see the ball because the post and the net was in the way.
No, the assistant made a mistake because he’s human. It tends to happen, even to the best of us.
The last time I checked a video camera didn’t have emotions, bad days or an ability to suffer from a loss of form.
Soon after the incident, the host broadcaster was able to show the millions of viewers that the ball had indeed crossed the line.
It took some time for them to pull up the appropriate replay because they continued to follow the action. The process could’ve been completed in 30 seconds or less if it was part of a natural routine.
The problem would have been solved and the sneering jokes about the game would have been avoided.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter joined the chorus of critics last night saying that goal-line technology was “no longer an alternative but a necessity.”
Ukraine manager Oleg Blokhin also blew Collina’s argument to a thousand tiny pieces.
“There are five refs on the pitch and the ball was over the line. Why do we need five refs then?”
Fair point.
The question of why football continues to drag its knuckles along the ground while the rest of the sporting world moves forward also needs to be answered.
Every sport has had to sacrifice something in order to limit mistakes. It’s time football did so as well.
You can follow Luke Doherty on Twitter @Luke_Doherty and on Sky News Australia.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (12) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- England Football, euro 2012, football, Ukraine football
June 21st 2012 @ 8:03am
Rcamp33 said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:03am | Report comment
So are we talking just about goal line technology? Or for everything? For me it has to be for everything otherwise it just creates another set of issues so what would have been the point.
Could you imagine the out cry if they had GLT for the euros – England would have been ripped off again because the offside wasn’t picked up.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:01am
Kasey said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
One of the more annoying aspects of being a football fan in Australian besides battling lazy stereotypes of being less Australian because I like the world game or I’m somehow more inclined to violence when I attend games is running into the stereotypical pontificating Aussie who loves another sport and deigns to lecture football on the odd occasion about how Soccer would be a much better sport if it were more like the ’more Australian sports’ and if the rules were to change(pick one of video ref, offside etc) they ‘might’ be more likely to give it a go. In this article I see NONE of that. I have long believed that the ‘solution’ to the goal/no goal issue was the addition of the extra Assistant Ref on the goal line. This game proved the axiom that where humans are involved errors and mistakes can be made. Pierre-Luigi Collina is the poster Boy for the anti-technology brigade. He is on record many times as being against any incursion to the beautiful game of technology, fearing the slippery slope. I was at Bloemfontein in 2010 at ‘ that’ game between Germany and England and IO must say I missed watching live the Ukraine v England game so I can’t comment on the alleged offside leading up to the Ukraine ghost goal. I have now after watching the youTube clip, which I can’t embed as I am at work (search FIFATV for goal line technology trial) changed my opinion.
I now think Goal Ref™ instead of Hawkeye ™ should be introduced as soon as is reasonably practicable while continuing to leave the offside calls to the traditional Linesman. Hawkeye has the disadvantage of requiring a bunch of costly cameras to be pre-placed in a stadium and it also requires a clear line of sight to determine goal or no goal after a pause in play. GoalRef is instantaneous – reducing the impact upon the game by preventing a stoppage. If the ball crosses the line, a signal is immediately sent to the refs watch regardless of how many players are in the line of sight. I do not see how FIFA can with a straight face preach for the status quo. With goals holding such a high relative value in our game due to their scarcity, the scoring of goals needs to be a bulletproof thing. The introduction of televised games has made every fan an instant expert on this matter. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:27am
c said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
look leave it as it is our game can stand on its own two feet without any need for ” enhancements “
June 23rd 2012 @ 2:22pm
Mat Coch said | June 23rd 2012 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
Agreed. It doesn’t happen often enough to warrant the cost and intrusion in to the beautiful game.
June 21st 2012 @ 9:47am
Neil said | June 21st 2012 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Even with the video replay, I can say probably, the whole of the ball crossed the whole of the line but I wouldn’t bet my house on it. So the only real answer is goal line technology that has been proven. Having extra officials across the professional football world would be wasteful, it is hard enough to get people to do the job now. Only a small percentage of people have the mental toughness to be referees and has got worse with the modern media. The reason I would not like video replays is that football is a fluid game and all decisions are in the opinion of the referee. What is needed is more money spent on the professional development of referees, inspections and more consistent approach from referees across countries so players in internationals no what to expect from referees.
Also a tougher stance is needed from game administrators to stop cheating such as diving, holding up the game by arguing with the ref after free kick decisions and penalties, jumping by goal keepers at penalties, extrodinary long amount of time taken at free kicks, substitutions, feigning injury and shirt pulling.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:04am
Qantas supports Australian Football said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
There’s no doubt there is a good argument for goal line technology to be introduced. However, as soon as you allow it—it will not stop there. We will have further cries for it to be used for offside, then for tackles and it will go on and on.. Be careful for what you wish for it may not be all so great in the end.. The assistant ref on the bi-line should have picked up that incident, we all agree. He was in a good position but failed to see the ball cross the line.. It was human error, and on another day in another game he would’ve most likely.. The thing about this incident that strikes me the most is that the goal posts are painted white and the ball is also white, so that can not be of any great assistance to give a correct call in a split second. What if the ball was a luminous orange would he then have made the correct call? Who knows, but one thing for sure, if we are going to continue with this strategy of goal line assistants to help those assistant refs standing on the bi-line we need to differentiate the colour of the ball from the colour of the white goal posts.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:14am
Kasey said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:14am | Report comment
I hear what you are saying QSAF, I too am fearful of this being the thin edge of the wedge that destroys the fabric of the game we all love. A further complication to your point regarding the ball and the colour of the goal posts was the colour of the boot and sock of the England player…also white. 9 times out of 10 we would all assume the AR would get the call right. I wonder how much of the histrionics are from people that just enjoy a good soccer-bash? Its all to easy for those who like to take pleasure in the missteps of the game to have another point and laugh fest on something as simple as was it a goal or not. Commentary regarding offside would require people to actually educate themselves about the game somewhat before sticking their oar into the water.
June 21st 2012 @ 10:57am
Fussball ist unser leben said | June 21st 2012 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Luke
Yes, in THIS instance, a video replay provided a definitive answer to the question: “whole of the ball over whole of the line”.
But, as we know from video technology used in NRL & AFL, there are numerous occasions when the answer is still being debated weeks after the video was replayed in super slow motion.
There are very obvious limitations to using a video camera to decide goals in football. The video camera cannot see through the human body, so the device is useless when asked to decide “whole of the ball over whole of the line” when the keeper has dived on the rolling ball, smothered it & pulled it back towards the field of play.
There are numerous other scenarios where the video camera will be obstructed from viewing the whole of the ball & will not provide the answer you need.
Finally, unlike other sports, which allow the flow of the game to be interrupted by challenges, with theatrical & clownish air-drawing of TV screens whilst we wait for someone to look at a video replay, IFAB has made it perfectly clear that GLT must provide instantaneous messaging to the match officials indicating a goal was scored.
By instantaneous, IFAB means less than 1 second must elapse between the event (whole of the ball crossing the whole of the goal line) and the referee receiving confirmation of the event.
There can be no disruption to the flow of the game.
From what I’ve been reading, the German/Danish technology, “Goal-Ref” is ticking all the boxes & was trialled in friendly matches in early June (including DEN v AUS).
PS: Here is a review of the 2 GLT systems that have made it to the final stage of IFAB-testing. Neither GLT system involves the use of a TV video replay so, please, let’s eliminate talk of video-replays deciding goals in football – it’s not even being considered.
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/blogs/mirror-football-blog/Hawk-Eye-v-GoalRef-The-pros-and-cons-of-the-over-the-line-systems-FIFA-are-testing-by-Martin-Lipton-article891556.html
June 21st 2012 @ 4:50pm
tonysalerno said | June 21st 2012 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Luke Doherty,
I understand where you are coming from but football (soccer) wants to remain a traditionalist’s game.
UEFA would prefer to make human referees making human errors and prolong the inevitability of technology in football.
If we fast forward a couple of weeks and if an incorrect ruling decides the European Champions than FIFA and UEFA may change their tune.
June 21st 2012 @ 8:35pm
c said | June 21st 2012 @ 8:35pm | Report comment
Something that has been overlooked in this discussion is that we did not have the technology in the olden days to highlight the mistakes missed by the referees then.
For example the television cameras were not intricate and technologically advanced for the time to pick up whether a soccer ball had part allor fully crossed over the line. the game and everyone involved just got on with it
Perhaps instead of introducing new technology to further pluck up things we should remove some of the cameras to simplify things so we can enjoy the results and avoid ongoing mass debate about this. Topic
June 23rd 2012 @ 7:42pm
Nick Jungfer said | June 23rd 2012 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
If the technology is there, use it. Obviously you may need to limit it and give serious thought to how its going to be done to prevent lots of lengthy pauses. Hard to take a sport seriously which continues to say they don’t need technology and as a result, continue to get calls wrong. In my opinion technology is needed to assist referees in soccer/football more than any other sport, where every decision and goal is so valuable.
June 24th 2012 @ 9:27am
c said | June 24th 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Nick I appreciate your thoughts for improving soccer/football but seriously we are able to overcome the “minor deficiencies” encountered as a result of not utilising state of the art technology, just consider for a minute the Euro 2012 competition.
I think that our game does not need the dancing girl’s pom-poms streamers fireworks bands pre-game entertainment continuous rule changes and big super screen to replay close decisions to build up the excitement, our game does all those things naturally
I can go to Hindmarsh Stadium in Adelaide with some 8000 others on a winter’s midweek evening and enjoy the exhilaration that our game provides without all of the aforementioned “enhancements”