Rewritten By Machine And New Technology – Technology In Football

Following England’s predictable exit at the hands of the Germans during the 2010 World Cup, there were once again fresh calls for technology to be introduced into the game. Despite Frank Lampard’s shot clearly landing a yard over the line, these calls were largely laughed down by football’s governing bodies. However, during the recent European Championships, England happened to gain an advantage from a fairly similar situation, which saw Euro co-hosts Ukraine denied a goal that had crossed the line, albeit, unlike Lampard’s, it was only marginally over and also came from an offside position, yet FIFA, who are renowned for their impartiality, openness, and stance against racism and prejudice, have insisted that technology is now essential to maintain the integrity of the game. A U-turn not too dissimilar to their stance on penalties, where Sepp Blatter sought to decide all games ending in a draw with spot kicks, but following Chelsea’s Champion’s League victory on penalties over Bayern Munich, it was suddenly a “tragic” way to end a match, and so Munich’s very own Franz Beckenbauer was promptly given the backing, funds, and a panzer division, to find an alternative solution.

Whatever FIFA’s true motives are, their change of mind has been warmly welcomed by large sections of the footballing community, embraced, almost universally, by football pundits, and portrayed in the media as a victory for football fans. But is it really a progressive step?

Rugby, cricket, and tennis are often touted as successful examples of how technology can work in sport, and they have undoubtedly seen an increase in the quality of decision making, yet there is something that doesn’t quite sit right with it. Whether it be the delays in celebration after a try is scored while video referees debate the outcome over slow motion replays, or the challenging of umpires’ decisions by tennis players, the traditional feel of the sport feels somewhat compromised. It will be a sad day in football when the match is stopped for the 3^rd time in 15 minutes so that we can go to a McDonald’s sponsored video replay, while the crowd, who’d previously been celebrating what had looked like a definite goal, begin a slow hand clap until the large plasma screens finally give confirmation, flashing up “Goal in”, and Chelsea Daggers is blared out over tinny speakers at a deafening volume. One could imagine that the likes of Sky, the scourge of football, and their legion of arm chair fans, lapping up this pantomime, zooming in on the faces of fans for dramatic effect, or perhaps they might take the UEFA approach, focusing on young girls with large breasts, while their “Respect” campaign banner flickers in the background on the very same electronic advertising boards that prevented the linesman seeing whether the ball had crossed the line in the first place. Money talks.

However, the main problem with introducing goal-line technology lies with the very nature of the game of football itself. In rugby, when the ball is placed down over the try-line, the passage of play ends, whether they are using technology or not. Similarly, in tennis and cricket, the play naturally stops as part of the game, and therefore not interrupted by the needs of a video referee. The breaks in play in football however, are infrequent, and rarely occur immediately after the incident in question occurs. This poses the problem of how it will actually work. If the ball comes close to crossing the line, is the game stopped and referred to a video ref? And if so, if it’s shown that the ball hasn’t crossed the line, how is the game restarted? A drop ball would clearly be unfair for the team that had the ball when the game was stopped. What if the ball had fallen to an attacking player who had a clear chance of scoring as the ref stopped the game, or if the defending team were on the verge of a counter attack? It’s all very well if the original shot is declared in, but if it’s deemed to have not crossed the line, then outcome of the match will have been seriously affected. Stopping the game mid flow seems implausible, yet playing on until the ball goes out of play, or until word of the goal-line incident outcome reaches the referee, would produce problems of what to do about events that have taken place in the meantime. Would goals scored in this period be discounted or allowed to stand? The results would be farcical.

However, there are a number of different goal line technologies available. And while Hawk-Eye and video replays rely on a certain time delay, as well as a clear view of the ball, the German designed Goalref sends an instant signal to the referee. The technology relies on specially designed balls containing a sensor, which when crossing the goal-line, break a magnetic field and alert the referee that a goal has been scored. But, with Hawk-Eye already installed at Wembley, it’s probably quite likely that the FA will favour that approach, and all the virtual replay bollocks that goes with it.

Despite the instant verification that can be provided by some of the goal-line devices, Michel Platini remains a firm advocate against technology in football. Whilst the odious President of UEFA rarely offers rational or agreeable propositions, he may have a point. For example, why should a goal denied due to the officials not seeing whether the ball had crossed the line take precedence over a goal denied due to a hand ball or a wrongly called offside decision? UEFA have introduced extra officials on the goal line, which although won’t be able to get it right 100% of the time, are able to see better than the referee or linesmen who may be a 100 yards away. If the ball is clearly over, like Frank Lampard’s during the 2010 World Cup, they will be able to tell, and can aid the referee whilst at the same time maintaining the human element in the game. And if they do occasionally get it wrong, then that’s just unfortunate, just as it is with the dozens of other decisions throughout the game, that’s just part of football.

Although the introduction of an instant, minimum fuss system may provide some valuable benefits to the game, many may still fear that it is merely another step towards football developing into the sterile, soulless, corporate, money-grabbing machine that it continues to become.