The Great Goal-Line Technology Debate

Goal-line technology... It's about time! - Sam Holloway.

Every single technological advance of the human race, and I mean every, had teething problems. The first computers were as big as my bedroom and took half an hour to boot up, the first radio systems electrocuted their users and need I mention Apollo 13. Now the question to ask is did these issues stop the progress mankind was attempting to make? No. The same applies to goal-line technology, whilst there are a number of perfectly reasonable reasons why goal-line technology would be problematic and indeed a challenge to implement, the rewards for such a system far outweigh the inevitable teething problems it’ll probably suffer.

There are limits that have to be placed on goal-line technology for it to be successful. Let me make it perfectly clear the only thing such technology should be implemented to do is eliminate the ‘howler’. The number of examples of where there is controversy for weeks about whether the ball crossed the line is ridiculous. The infamous Pedro Mendes lob over Roy Carroll in 2005, Luis Garcia’s goal that knocked Chelsea out of the Champions League in 2006 and, more recently, Frank Lampard’s ‘goal’ against Germany at the South Africa World Cup are all examples where assistant referees’ mistakes have cost teams dearly. It is this that goal-line technology could eradicate completely. There is no need to keep the ‘howler’ in the game. As long as the technology is limited to simply whether the ball crossed the line, and nothing else, it will work. Referees deserve more discretion in football anyway and removing this issue would make their task substantially easier. Issues with fouls and offsides remain with the referee and his assistants and the issue of how you restart play is eradicated by a piece of ingenious technology. Having a micro chip inside the ball, something which Adidas has developed with their Teamgeist 2 Intelligent Ball, means a signal would be sent to the referee directly instead of relying on video replays.

In short, goal-line technology can’t come quickly enough and, strictly as an England fan that had to watch Lampard’s goal which crossed the line by a good yard disallowed, I absolutely can’t wait.

Technology isn't always the answer - Anthony Quinn

The ‘slippery slope’ is a term which often infuriates the ethicist; it nevertheless seems a somewhat relevant limitation as far as the argument in favour of goal line technology in football is concerned.

Would a simple video replay indicating whether the football has crossed the line really deduct most of the game’s controversy and subsequent criticism? I would beg to argue that it would not.

It is undisputed that with the aid of a replay officials may have been able to award clear goals such as Frank Lampard’s goal that never was against Germany in the World Cup 2010 or Pedro Mendes’ wonder strike at Old Trafford a few seasons back. But would the problem really go away if Fifa just said yes?

Let us add a little more controversy to a potential situation. So player X has clearly handled the ball before he has kicked the ball over the line. The referee has seen neither and as a result goes to the ‘square in the air’ in order to find out as to whether or not the ball has crossed the line. It is decided that the ball has crossed the line and a goal is awarded. Would the team who have just conceded not feel wholly aggrieved that the opposition team has just been awarded an illegitimate goal? Despite all the money being invested in technology, the game would still be faced with significant problems. There would soon be cries for technology to review infringements as well.

In addition, have the fifth and sixth officials appointed to UEFA matches not been adequate in carrying out their roles on the goal line? I fail to recall a similar blunder, like those aforementioned, being committed in European matches in the last few seasons. Can these extra officials not just be appointed to the Barclays Premier League? It would certainly save a lot of time and money.

There are also other practicalities to consider. Is an individual sitting in front of a computer screen really going to be able to make a more accurate decision than the two (potentially three) pairs of eyes on the field of play? It is still going to be up to the interpretation of a human being as to whether the ball has hovered over every blade of painted grass.

There are plenty more aspects of the proposal to scrutinize before the technology is even tested on a match, not least the problem of its application throughout the footballing ladder, of which I do not have the space to write here. What I hope to make clear here is that there are a number of limitations to consider before everyone begins jumping on the FIFA criticising bandwagon.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.