Ok, we’ve been undeniably slack at Come On The Arsenal of late. And whilst the World Cup has produced plenty of talking points, us Arse-addicts know what we really like, and it isn’t the sight of referees ruining yet another footballing contest…
Yes video technology is undoubtedly the hottest topic in the football sphere right now, so without further ado let me reveal our guest speaker for the afternoon: Robert Szmigielski leads us through the nitty gritty of the ongoing video technology saga…
Is it time for the use of video technology in football?
Thierry Henry’s double-dribble against Ireland reignited the age-old debate on video replays, with animated discussions dominating sports pages across the globe. As usual, FIFA seemed no closer to finding a solution. But following the shocking miss by officials to award Lampard’s chipped goal against the Germans, is now the time for Zurich to stop stalling and finally start acting?
Locked in battle
Football is widely recognised as the world’s most popular sport; its free-flowing essence and the spectacle of players expressing themselves with a ball at their feet has captivated fans and brought joy to millions – from the London boardroom to the African slum.
However, it’s precisely football’s uninterrupted nature that purists believe might vanish if video technology is introduced, turning football into a giant, intermittent chess game like the NFL.
But with the money at stake in modern football, the pro-video technology movement has gained momentum. Many fans, commentators, players and (especially) managers believe it to be a natural progression in a game largely unchanged since it was first played in the mid-19th century. So how close is FIFA to making a decision?
Sport 2.0
With the breathtaking array of electronics available, many sports have evolved alongside technology accordingly. Rugby union uses video replays to decide dubious tries, cricket applies instant replays to run-outs, stumpings and doubtful catches and Hawk-Eye has enabled professional tennis players to dispute umpiring decisions since 2006.
Not that football isn’t trying. Adidas has been working on a ‘smart-ball’ which allows the referee, via an electronic watch, to tell whether the ball has crossed the line. Initially tested during the 2005 Under-17 World Cup in Peru, it underwent improvement and was used, successfully, during the 2007 World Club Cup in Japan.
Hawk-Eye’s success forced the International Football Association Board (IFAB) – the governing body that, with FIFA, rules on law changes – to consider introducing the technology for goal-line queries only, providing a decision can made in five seconds. The makers now claim they’ve got it down to 0.5 seconds. Two bureaucracy-filled years later, and still nothing.
Where to draw the line?
The issue is undoubtedly tricky and perhaps explains why FIFA is dragging its heels. Using replays to decide, for example, whether a player dived or was fouled, is not a conclusion based on fact but rather opinion; even with a myriad of hi-resolution replays available, pundits still regularly bicker over such decisions. Officials don’t have that luxury. But why FIFA hasn’t ruled on goal-line technology (the whole ball either crosses the line, or it does not) has mystified the footballing fraternity – even referees.
In October 2008, UK refereeing chief Keith Hackett publicly called on Sepp Blatter to introduce Hawk-Eye to eliminate farcical incidents such as Reading’s phantom goal against Watford and Pedro Mendes’ lob over Roy Carroll in 2005.
“The FA, Premier League and Football League have all been supportive of goal-line technology and I was delighted by what Hawk-Eye produced,” Hackett said at the launch of the Association of Elite Sports Officials. “[But] it really is in the hands of the man at the top.”
Resistance
In June 2009, during the Confederations Cup final between Brazil and the United States, Kaká’s header hit the crossbar and appeared to have crossed the line. The goal was disallowed, but replays showed it should have counted. FIFA’s ‘man at the top’ was present, and was quizzed by reporters the following day.
“Such situations can only be assessed if we had goal-line technology,” he admitted. ‘But [...] all the technologies that have been presented to the IFAB are not accurate – or not accurate at the level where we can honestly decide whether it was in or out.”
UEFA president Michel Platini, meanwhile, has consistently rejected the use of technology, deciding to use two extra referees in all Europa League matches this season as an experiment.
“Video would kill football,” he recently told France Football magazine, before stating his intent to introduce five referees to Champions League matches and for Euro 2012 qualifying. Clearly, as football’s most powerful duo demonstrate, the matter is far from settled.
Art imitating life
Modern football is now a multi-million pound game of risk. The threat of massive debt, job losses and administration loom – not to mention the considerable amounts of money spent by fans every season. Surely, if the difference between success and failure is a matter of centimetres, FIFA is obliged to employ the most precise decision-making methods available.
However, the unpredictability of football has fuelled passions among fans for decades (and in some Latin American countries even ignited civil war). Above all, in an increasingly fragile global society, millions of people see football as the only common link they have left. It’s the closest the world has to a universal language and its error-strewn nature, according to former FIFA general secretary Urs Linsi, is why it’s so precious.
“Players, coaches and referees all make mistakes. It’s part of the game,” he said in 2005. “Football’s human element must be retained. It mirrors life itself and we have to protect it.”
I guess the main problem is if open play continues is it fair for the ref to stop and consult? In Lampard’s case the keeper got hold of the ball giving the ref a chance to blow (although technically the ball is still live and the keeper of course wanted to play on), but if the ball never goes out (or is not judged to have gone out) you are ruining the chance for a counter attack. That’s the bottom line. It means that for some would-be penalties etc, where the ball goes flying out, you could stop and consult without detracting from the game (just the seconds required to consult) but for many you would actually have to stop open play. Either that or wait until the next time the ball goes out of play and then review. That could mean taking the play back several minutes – would goals and yellow cards that took place be rescinded? Also as the author of this article points out, most fouls and therefore penalties are a matter of opinion. There would be a heap of pressure for referees to give soft penalties every time a striker was kicked or pulled in the box… technically they are fouls. One solution would be that a coach call challenge 1 or 2 plays a game (like in American football). It is still disruptive but it puts a limit on the disruptive influence and would neutralise 95% of game-ruining calls.