A few weeks ago, in a piece for SBS’s The World Game following the A-League grand final, I broached the subject of introducing video technology to help adjudicate on refereeing decisions such as the one that saw Central Coast Mariners denied a last-gasp opportunity to draw the game and, in an unfortunate consequence, Mariners goalkeeper Danny Vukovic outed from the sport for 15 months.
For me it just seems right that if the means is available to make the game fairer, then the game, run by FIFA, should embrace it. The international bodies governing tennis, rugby league and cricket have seen no problem doing so. All power to them. In my opinion those sports have been enhanced by the introduction of video and other technology.
Yet this week, presented with a chance to do something groundbreaking for football, the biggest sport in the world, FIFA has again baulked at taking a proactive step forward for all fans of the world game.
In Gleneagles, Scotland, the International Football Association Board, a body comprised of the four British football associations with UEFA and FIFA, voted down a proposal to introduce goal-line technology in football: the camera-based Hawk-Eye, well known in tennis and cricket.
The company developing the technology, Hawk-Eye Innovations, is apoplectic, as is the Football Association and the Barclays Premier League. Years of work and millions of dollars have produced nothing.
The killjoy in this drama is UEFA president Michel Platini, who is an opponent of such technology and advocates instead the introduction of two extra linesmen, one behind each goalmouth. FIFA president Sepp Blatter, mindful of protecting his power base, has predictably backed the Frenchman, saying Hawk-eye is “too complicated and very costly” and does not “necessarily add anything positive to the game and could harm the authority of the referee”.
This, despite both men being initially in favour of introducing Hawk-Eye to football and IFAB commissioning the company to develop a workable system at its last general meeting in Manchester in March 2007.
By all accounts, Hawk-Eye Innovations did exactly what was asked of it. According to its own website, it was “stipulated that a goal-line system must be accurate to 5mm” and “that the desired information is communicated to the referee in a quick, discreet manner… Hawk-Eye will provide an answer is less than two seconds”. What followed was 12 months of rigorous testing, all demonstrated by the company first-hand to IFAB officials. Premier League bods wanted the technology in place by 2009.
But because Platini wasn’t convinced, Blatter has buckled and now the international game is back at square one: beholden to the authority of referees, that tribe of untouchable but infallible geniuses which includes Mark Shield, Graham Poll and Luis Medina Cantalejo.
How simply having two extra officials is put forward as a viable solution when outrageous gaffes can, have been and will continue to be made by supposedly the best referees and linesmen in the world is beyond my comprehension.
The whole point of a technology such as Hawk-Eye is to eliminate the factor of human error. Just adding more humans doesn’t eliminate that possibility. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that putting in a camera does?
I am all for the purity and simplicity of football. I love the fact that the game is one of the most accessible in the world, available to be played by anyone with a ball, room for a field and a couple of goalposts.
But having Hawk-Eye introduced in the Premier League or, eventually, the World Cup isn’t going to suddenly mean that this romantic image of will be destroyed, that it’ll be incumbent on every football competition everywhere to install it at great expense.
It just means the most popular football league in the world, the English Premier League, has missed out on a chance to be fairer and the World Cup, the pinnacle of the game, will go on being an incubator of controversy and enmity.
Crucial decisions like Geoff Hurst’s disputed goal from the 1966 World Cup final will go on being made and FIFA will continue sitting on its hands, doing nothing.
As Jon Carter wrote sagely for Soccernet.com during the week: “FIFA like to project an image of progression, while the reality is that … football’s decision makers have a flagrant disregard for any good that technology could do for the game. They see some form of machine-orientated Puma advert as the outcome of allowing the slightest hint of technology into a game steeped in tradition.”
This attitude is counterproductive and regressive, the sort of head-in-the-sand conservatism you would expect in polo or royal tennis, not the most exciting, popular, dynamic sport in the world.
It really does make you wonder whether “fair play” matters to them at all.
bob
Guest
The reason the football authorities have resisted technology is historically not because they are luddites, but because of a principle. Football is teh sport of the poorest people... it comes best from urban slums, but can be played by anyone, anywhere... and the ide is that every player, at every level, in every country plays to the same rules, on the same playing field, so to speak. The kids playing in a dustbowl in SA or Brazil, have the same game, the same officials, the same size wnr weiht ball, the same problems and benefis, as the Man. Utd, and Chelsea's or Real Madrid's etc... in principle. That's why stadia purely for football dont have convered roofs, why pitches are grass and not astro-turf wherever possible... and why there are no camera's to help the ref... Football doesn't need it... I like the principle that football holds to.
Kazama
Guest
IMO any available technology that can help referees and their assistants should be implemented. I think the goal line technology is a must. As far as I know it would produce virtually instantaneous results - please correct me if I am wrong. IMO, with the technology in place we will never have contoversial goals like Liverpool's v Chelsea in the UCL, or non-goals like Tottenham's at Old Trafford in the EPL again. Players, referees, managers and fans could rest easy after a game knowing that no one had been cheated a moment of brilliance by a bad decision or an official being out of place. As for instant replays, I think for penalty decisions it would not be such a bad idea. Regarding the perception that it will chew up a lot of time, the fall-out from controversial penalties usually lasts about five minutes anyway while players and managers beg (or swear at) the referee in an always useless attempts to reverse the decision. Players and managers can't argue that they were robbed by video decisions. It might even help curb the trend of diving as well. Another thing that could help to stop 'simulation' is the introduction of an automatic red card for any player caught diving in the video replay. I think any fouls outside the area or whatever should be left to the referee on the day. I'm a fan of having post-match reviews though, as I believe that would go some way to stamping out Muscat-esq off the ball mischief. Red cards and suspensions should be given out posthumously (or reversed) regardless of the referee's decision on the day. That would make our game much fairer and safer, IMO. Offsides should still be left to the assistants IMO. And let's leave it at two, I think having four would only create more chaos. Eg: What happens when a goal is scored and one assistant thinks it was onside and one thinks it was offside? I think FIFA just has to get the referee directors of each member nation together and stress to them that the attacker, not the defender, should get the benefit of the doubt, instead of just saying that is what referees are doing (which they quite clearly aren't). Maybe referees that disallow onside goals should face fines or suspensions. Not much chance of any of that happening though. Not much chance of FIFA doing anything constructive or progressive, really, which is extremely disappointing.
Midfielder
Guest
Jes I have no problem with the ball marked, to deciede is it a goal or not, and think like you in major leagues, in should be used. But also agree with Ben how often is it needed. I do like the idea of a review pannel of experts looking at all fouls after a match, and if a player is deemed to be constantly diving then a charge / penalty should be made. Further if a player has received either a red or yellow card because of the dive then the penatly should be withdrawn. As to stopping the match it is simply to hard, as were is the cut off line, half way or six yard box, how many seconds back do you go or how many plays or passes. So the review committee would attempt to cut out fouls and this would be good for the game as a whole.
Nick
Guest
I think that sports that make use of technology have become too reliant on it. How many tries are awarded these days with out the ref going to the video replay in rugby league, the same with cricket run outs and some catches, and now in tennis players can question calls. The only piece of technology I'd like to see in football is something to help the ref on offside calls as these happen quite regularly during a game. Decisions for & against a team usually even themselves out over a season and thats why judging a team on its regular season standings is a much better measure than having a finals series.
sledgeross
Guest
At the end of the day, its what sport is all about, in all its futile glory. Human error in the form of umpire/referee's help make the game more of a spectacle. Even in cricket and rugby league, we still see umpires and ref's get it wrong even when aidied by video technology. In RL especially, when things are slowed down frame by frame, the referess interpretation of the rules can change the perceived adjudication.
Jesse Fink
Guest
Diving is another vexed subject altogether, the JFK assassination of football... I agree something needs to be done about it, it's a blight on the game, but given the snail's pace of reform at FIFA nothing will be done in the short term. Getting back to Hawk-Eye, I think it's shameful that IFAB baulked at approving it because they gave all indications prior to their decision they were for the technology and they asked the company to develop it. Hawk-Eye kept up their end of the bargain.
Ben
Guest
I agree something should be done about it, I just think that as diving is a big scourge on the game it's something that should be looked at first. Plus it doesn't mean extra, potentially onerus, costs as all games (except I guess in minnow leagues) are televised and the ref's performances are scrutinised anyway, so why not use this to make calls on divers. No worries re Danny Hi-5, I just got a bit fed up with all the cries from Mariners supporters that if Shield had called the handball the Mariners were guaranteed to have won. With Covic's record this year and JA's form I think it would've been 50:50 whether or not they would've equalised ;-)
Millster
Guest
I am in agreement with Mick and Ben that Hawk-eye is limited in what it can offer football. Yes it should absolutely be used to objectively police the boundaries (including the goal-mouth) but thats about as far as I can see it going during play. Overall I think there are two 'types' of technological usage that apply to football: - limited usage of during-game technology ( such as Hawk-eye) to assist where possible; and - extensive post-game review including of fouls and cards given, and those not given but that should be retrospectively (eg. serious off-the-ball fouls), and punishment of simulation. I stand shoulder to shoulder with Ben in the view that this should be introduced immediately. Technology cannot, of course, be used to retrospectively change decisions such as to award (or not) a handball, or offside decisions. These have to be done rapidly and in the run of play. And until such time as each player's boot, and the ball, has a pressure-sensitive chip inserted with instant locational analysis done, then I don't think there is a feasible alternative to human refereeing. One of the many sadnesses for me in the Platini decision is that he is wasting the 2 additional refs. Yes, football needs them, as well as whatever technology it can realistically use. But they need to be on the sidelines (so that the WHOLE field is covered on EACH side), not behind the goals.
Jesse Fink
Guest
Just because it's an uncommon occurrence, Ben doesn't mean nothing should be done about it. Let's start with the goal-line and move on eventually to tackling simulation - all in good time! As for Vukovic, you construed something I had not intended. I've cleared it up.
Ben
Guest
While FIFA and UEFA should no doubt be lambasted for their Luddite-esque attitude to technology, I reckon you've picked the wrong example here Jesse. How often is there a goal line situation where the Hawkeye technology would be used? It certainly isn't a common occurrence (maybe one in 5, 10, 20 40 games?), so I hardly think that those who walk the grubby corridors of power have dropped the ball with this one. They have, however, dropped the ball when they failed to endorse the Scottish FA's proposal to have post match video reviews of games and heavily punish players who are guilty of 'simulation' (why don't they just call it diving or even better, cheating!). This is much more of a problem than the once in a blue moon did it/didn't it cross the goal line decisions. As for the comment about Vukovic's high-five in the grand final, that's an interesting spin on things. I know the world is more and more becoming a place where personal responsibility for ones actions is no longer required, but surely claiming that it was the referee's (wrong) decision that caused Danny to be outed for 15 months is a bit of a stretch!
Mick of Newie
Guest
I have no issue with using technology for goal line, the benefit outweighs the detriment. I would be open minded on using techonology for offside if it could be implemented without unduly interupting the game. Incorrect offsides decisions (particluarly against attacking teams) are a blight on the game. I favour using video to impose or repeal yellow or red cards and I would agree to an immdeiate second view on potential red card incidents. I would be dead against using it for interpretation in the penalty area. Yes the handball in the GF was clear on the replay but I could envisage just about every corner being scrutinised for some foul. Look at Aloisi's penalty shout, if cricket or rugby, or rugby league was a guide it would have taken an eternity to make such a decision, all angles were inconclusive, yet intuitively you suspected there had been a shirt pull. Also I suspect it would encourage diving, at a corner an arm goes across your chest with no force, go to ground, slow motion shows the arm making contact but no reference as to whether there was sufficient force to impede a player, yet a penalty would still be likely to be given. We would need 3 hours to play a game.