Technology in football
A line waiting to be crossed
Most teams will have a similar
moment of despair. Germany felt vindicated in the 2010 World Cup in South
Africa, after a clear Frank Lampard goal was denied during the
quarter-finals. Tottenham fans still grumble about Pedro Mendes’s disallowed
goal in 2005 that denied them their first win at Manchester United for 16
years. They were robbed
again in this year’s FA Cup final against Chelsea, when Juan Mata scored a
ghost goal. Crystal Palace have found themselves on the wrong end of myopic
officials on more
than one
occasion. Perhaps Watford fans can consider themselves the most hard done
by, after Reading were awarded “the goal that never
was”—when the ball had in fact been kicked out for a goal kick.
The list is endless. Virtually every club on every continent
has a story to tell. But such controversies look to be a thing of the past after
FIFA, the game’s governing body, at last gave the go-ahead for trials of two
goal-line technologies. These could be introduced as early as the turn of the
year in the English Premier League. The first system is Hawk-Eye, which is owned
by Sony and is already familiar to fans of tennis and cricket. It uses cameras
to track the path of the ball. The second, GoalRef, a German invention, uses a
sensor in the ball and in the goal posts to see if it has crossed.
The introduction is a victory for Sepp Blatter, the head of
FIFA, football’s global governing body. At first sceptical, he was won round to
the idea after the Frank Lampard debacle. But it is a blow for Michel Platini,
the president of UEFA, which administers the European game. Mr Platini, who
covets Mr Blatter’s job, has argued that human fallibility should be accepted as
part of the game, and has put his faith in having extra officials positioned
behind the goals. They were introduced in the recent European Championships. But
Mr Platini was made to look foolish when one of them missed it when the ball
crossed the line in Ukraine’s crucial match against England.
All of these mistakes, coupled with technology which is now
viable, has made the introduction inevitable. But some worry that, now the game
has crossed its technological Rubicon, the call for more intrusive hi-tech
rulings will become irresistible, such as video replays to decide penalties or
offsides. This might make play too stop-start. One of the reasons that football
is so popular is that it is so free-flowing. The game would do well not to
forget this.
And the irony is, had technology been used in Ukraine’s case,
the wrong decision would have been made. Although the ball did cross the line,
the assistant referee had already missed an obvious offside. The game is better
for having such talking points. Perhaps there is hope yet for the 50-year
grudge.
No comments:
Post a Comment