The current debate over goal-line technology cannot be adequately resolved by a simple answer of either yes or no. The implications of this topic for the world of football cannot be overemphasised.
It is therefore of absolute importance that we adopt a rational approach to the issue. Both advocates and opponents of the technology should be well informed.
I think that we all know the arguments in favour of goal-line technology, so I won’t waste much time poking at dead meat.
Many have voiced their support for the technology with the simplistic reasoning that “we need to reach the right decision”. Folks, it’s just not that simple.
In actual fact, goal-line technology threatens the very integrity of football and distances the game from its founding rules and regulations.
The beautiful game has a long and proud history, rooted in its simple set of laws, which are adjudicated from the subjective perspective of the referee. This is what football is about. It is engraved in the sport’s DNA.
By design, football has an unmatched propensity to enthral and entertain, largely due to the fluidity which comes from its attack/counter-attack game. Dilly-dabbling with the rules, which allow this fluidity, is inadvisable. But does goal-line technology really threaten this aspect of the game?
Well, for us to give a qualified response to this question, we must examine the goal-line technology systems which are on the cards.
On July 5, FIFA gave approval to two companies, Hawk-Eye and GoalRef, to begin testing their goal-line technologies. Both companies are currently in Japan, preparing to commence final testing in November. The aim is to have this technology ready in time for the FIFA Club World Cup in December.
GoalRef uses a microchip in the ball to communicate with an antenna system around the goal which determines whether the ball has crossed the line.
Hawk-Eye, on the other hand, utilises cameras around the stadium to track the ball. The software can distinguish between the ball and its surroundings. The mechanism is practical; when the ball crosses the line, the referee will be alerted by a device on his arm which will vibrate accordingly.
So has the future of football arrived on our doorsteps?
The implementation of goal-line technology, though well-intended, may open the door for further technology-driven changes to the beautiful game. In other words, this may be just the beginning of a plethora of changes (or ‘enhancements’, as many proponents would call them) to football.
Michel Platini shared this view earlier this year when he said: “I am totally against it. Let’s have humans. I remain consistent. It’s not a question of goal-line technology – it’s the question of the beginning of technology in football. I am totally against it.”
In reality, goals are worth millions nowadays, so the desire for accuracy is understandable. To put it bluntly, with the exorbitant amounts of money involved in modern football, it would be naive to expect the powers that be to ignore the fans’ desire for the correct decision to be made.
Wait a minute, I’m having an epiphany. Ehhm this is all about reaching the ‘correct’ decision, right?
Okay, bear with me. Let’s consider this scenario for a moment: a team is awarded a corner kick by the referee. As we, the viewers, can clearly see via television replay, this was the wrong decision. The team wrongfully awarded the corner then score from this corner – which the referee is made aware of by goal-line technology.
In this particular scenario, a combination of human error (the referee awarding the corner kick in the first place) and goal-line technology has ultimately led to an unfair decision – fail! There should never have been a corner in the first place, and the primary error was further aggravated by the awarding of the goal.
Can we thus surmise that a combination of the two is inefficient and, well, useless? Think about it. A mixture of the two will only cause more controversy.
Yes, this scenario is just an example from my imagination, but these are the situational conflicts that we will be faced with.
So if, through this technology, we realise that a goal has been scored, would it not be in-line with the measure for us to go back to the beginning of the entire play and search for any transgressions of the law? What if it is offside? What if there was a clear foul two plays back? Let’s be careful not to ‘cross the line’ here (couldn’t resist).
The introduction of goal-line technology will only give us the natural temptation to call for further enhancements. There will be more changes and more technology to eliminate any imperfections in the game.
Any argument that the correct decision will ultimately be made is feeble. Human error is by no means eradicated. In fact, in situations like the one I outlined, it is exacerbated.
Human error has helped to make the game as intriguing and explosive as it is. Why threaten this?
Do not be drawn into the unqualified argument that football must move forward with the times or risk falling behind. Goal-line technology is not necessary.
Ben of Phnom Penh
Roar Guru
One of the fallacies of the OP's argument is the concept of the "the sport". Goal line technology will not be used in the vast majority of football matches which are played in parks, lower leagues and poorer nations around the world. It is being mooted for the elite matches where the impact of poor goal-line decisions is exponentially greater. Even then we are talking about a decision that occurs very rarely, but with significant consequences. The soul of the sport isn't in the EPL, it is down at your local park. Goal line technology is unlikely to tear that fundamental fabric apart.
clipper
Guest
There were all these arguments against technology before it was applied in Tennis (Federer still doesn't like it), but it has become part of the sport and added to the atmosphere when a line call is questioned. Surely the same would happen when a goal was questioned - it could go on the big screen and get the fans involved. It's almost instantaneous, so there would be minimal stoppage, especially considering how crucial each goal is in most low scoring games.
AL
Guest
I was refering to "goal line technology" and the use of technology would be used in officiating the games rules. It seems you have not understood the artical nor my comments. YOU are the goose.
AL
Guest
I was refering to "goal line technology" and the essence of how the rules of the game are officiated. Read the artical next time it would make you less of a goose.
AL
Guest
Mate we are talking about sport. If a decision in sport is unjust, so what. We are talking about goal line technology. A society should always try and improve itself in all areas. HOWEVER we are talking about a sport, a sport that was originally invented for the heath and enjoyment of people NOT for the betting agencys to make money.
Axelv
Guest
From what I've seen of Cricket and League, video technology has ruined the sports. It has sucked the celebration and elation out of every try and wicket. This is what sport is all about, and they've taken it away. I'm for goal line technology, but I can definitely see it as a door to making the rest of football decisions dependent on a slow video referral. I watched the NRL Grand Final last night and at one point the game stopped for 10 minutes, and then there were endless other pauses that were waiting for the video. Talk about sucking the fun out of sport.
Axelv
Guest
It's as bout as simple as Chess. Anyone can play, but the skill levels and tactics go to an insane level.
nordster
Guest
Any deployment of tech in a sport like football needs to address the cost vs benefit test ...even if at the elite level only, the number of times i have seen a situation where it would be used is rare. Perhaps it would be worth having at World cups every four years ...can see the benefit there...but for league football its not worth the cost. And thats not even getting into the question in footballl...do we want such tech being invested in when (a) it will barely be used and (b) it sets up a difference between the top and bottom versions of the game ...which for plenty of folks is a legit issue. For goal difference, the chances of that very game where the tech would have decided that single goal being the difference in a league title or playoffs cup place ...well i wont even try and work out the maths on that one. Me, I was a 'Maths in Space' cadet at school, basic probabilities only :)
Stevo
Guest
I'm not for drones running the show :) but it doesn't matter how often goal line tech gets used it's simply a tech that if applied correctly can make better decisions. And your 3-0, 1-0 score argument doesn't include for the prospect that at the end of the year goal difference could decided top, bottom or a place in the finals.
nordster
Guest
Nice in theory but in what Actual ways can technology help decision making in football? The instances where goalline would be required in a league season would be what...once maybe twice a season...if that. Its quite likely to be used to decide the third goal in a 3-0 as much as a winning goal in a 1-0. But hey if they can get aerial drones deciding offside calls i am all for that! :)
nordster
Guest
In football though the referees interpretations are arguably more subjective than other sports....the only places where technology could help refs in football is goalline ...and lets be honest it may get used once a year. And for offsides...if they could deploy aerial drones to replace the linesman then that would be something!
Cappuccino
Roar Guru
Neville, it doesn't "necessitate" further change. It simply makes football better and more accurate. Just because we make a slight improvement in accuracy doesn't mean we must follow through and attempt to get the most accurate form of the game.
Cappuccino
Roar Guru
"Argue the issue by its own merit and not by the merit of video technology" -This.
Shingai Darangwa
Roar Rookie
AL i agree. Football should be played at the same level the world over. I stay in South Africa and Im sure we're not the only place in the world which will not be able to employ devices such as GLT. As such some countries will fall behind the wealthier nations. Some countries move 'forward' while others are left behind. And why? To move with the times?
Stevo
Guest
Your arguments out-weigh Neville's contribution by a country mile. How anyone one could offer the line that football mirrors life because life isn't always fair has had me scratching my head. It's a line also promoted by Les and Foz at SBS. In fact our society constantly tries to rectify the 'unfairness' - that's how we have progressed. Either through laws to reduce inequality (men/women, black/white) or technology (electric wheel chairs, computer assisted learning, DNA testing). It seems that some people have a romantic view of the past that colours their view about introducing technology to assist better decision making in football.
Shingai Darangwa
Roar Rookie
Cool story Fly On The Wall!!! Understood Dasilva you make a good point.
dasilva
Guest
Although I don't quite agree with that "you are deluded" which is little bit ad hominem. nevertheless I think you have a point that the game has changed throughout time and sometimes technology has influenced it changed. The thing is, goal line technology and video technology doesn't actually changed the way the game is played. It just changed the way the game is adjudicate. The idea is that if the complete ball cross the line, it is a goal. That rule remains the same at all levels. Technology will simply assist the referee in making the right decision and change the procedure in the way the referees determine whether it is a goal I find it bizarre that when FIFA makes rules change to the actual game itself such as introduction of passive offside or back passes to the GK, there are far less outrage by purist when that fundamentally changed the way the game is played to the core (affects the way the players behave on the pitch rather than the referee) whilst stuff like goal line technology has no impact on the rules of the game and simply impact the procedure in which the referee adjudicate. What is more "pure" changing the rules which affects how the players behave no the pitch or change the procedure on how referee adjudicate to get the right decision. The thing is referee already have technology to help adjudicate adn that the procedure in how referee adjudicate is different to grassroots already. referees have access to communication equipment so the on field referee can contact with their assistant referee over the crowd noise. It is a technology that's not present at park level. Is there any outrage to that. After all if referee makes mistakes because they can't hear the assistant then aren't we interfering with the "human element of the game".
Fly on the Wall
Guest
so you will ban all games played under lights? and you will ban watering of pitches? And you will reinstate worldwide institutionalised corruption (oops... FIFA al;ready has that one covered). And you will revert to amateur status everywhere? And everyone will play barefooted? Don't be a goose.
Fly on the Wall
Guest
Neville, you are deluded. A bigger load of tripe I have not read since I last picked up a News Ltd publication (about 20 years ago). what does it say about the people who run soccer that getting goal decisions right is not in the interest of the biggest sport on the planet? Why not let the crowd decide? How about vote by iPhone? If soccer was to retain its 1850s purity, as you so desire - then it would not be played at night, or on manicured pitches, or have banned back passes to the GK etc. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world because it is the cheapest to get up and running - a couple of sticks in the ground and any old tin can to kick. And most of the world is 'developing' rather than first world. I cannot believe The Roar would allow such drivel to be published without being vetted first. Unless you are simply out to provoke. If you're after a battle of wits then I must inform you that I refuse to fight an unarmed man !
c
Guest
Al agreed this is it no more needs be said on this topic the game is beautiful in the world because of its simplicity