Frank Lampard’s goal was just the latest incident which has sparked the debate about the use of video technology in football. FIFA and Sepp Blatter’s approach has been, up to now, completely intransigent.
Late last year he said:
Please do not insist on the technology, the day that the referee takes 2 captains aside to study monitors and see if something is inside the box or outside is the day the spectators will say no, we are not coming to the game.
Which is nonsense, I think we can all agree. Now though, Blatter is under huge pressure with Guus Hiddink suggesting the FIFA President should embrace technology which will prevent clear errors from happening or resign. From one of the world’s most respected coaches that’s damning in the extreme and may go some way to explaining why, this very morning, Blatter says a ‘new approach’ is needed.
It remains to be seen whether he’s simply paying lip service to issue, a soundbite which will stop the criticism until he can brush the issue under the carpet again. However, for those of us who want to see football move into the 21st century it’s a small positive. But what about those who view the use of technology as a bad thing?
To give an alternative view M. Saketh writes about the difficulties of implementing video technology:
–
In an ideal world, technology would instantly make all the decisions in a football match, without error and without interrupting the flow of the game. But the reality is a lot different. Amidst all this clamour for ‘technology’, there have not been many who have commented on all the consequences of any current-day technological solution.
Blatter and Platini are afraid of technology
The major glaring mistakes that referees/assistant referees(linesmen) make are related to a) whether the ball has crossed the goal line or not, b) offside calls and c) diving, playacting etc.
Video replays are the immediate and only viable response to b) and c). There is no available video technology that can instantly give a verdict without stopping the flow of the sport. So, unless you want to see a endless repetition of video replays as every decision of the referee is questioned, there have to be a fixed number of ‘challenges’ per team. After the nitty-gritties about challenges are worked out, one has to look at the disadvantages of using such a system – the most important being the interruptions to the game.
Because teams are going to use their challenges irrespective of whether there are blatant wrong calls, you know : just in case. And many many goals will be contested. And a laboured decision by an external umpire will signal a goal, not the ball smashing into the net. I, for one, am against that. Cricket and tennis have natural breaks built in. Football does not, and ‘killing the flow of the game’ is not just a stupid excuse made by football administrators, it is a serious issue. It damages the charm of the game.
I am not saying that blunders should not be removed. Any system that allows Keita to get away with blatant playacting is obviously flawed, and Lampard’s disallowed goal was ridiculous. These are very serious issues too. But there are other ways to take care of it.
Do a post-match video review and let anyone found to be indulging in simulation be slapped with a heavy penalty – like a 5 match ban and a huge fine for example. Then see how many players risk it on the pitch.
As for goal-line decisions and off-sides, extra officials would vastly decrease the number of errors. Does it really matter if a player is mere centimeters offside? Football doesn’t rely on such infinite precision. A referee is allowed to make decisions on how rash tackles are – a purely subjective decision. Officials often differ as to what constitutes a yellow card offence or whether a player has committed enough fouls to warrant a card. Even with the help of video, it comes down to a subjective decision by a human at the end – and there are bound to be variations between different referees. It surely does not matter if a player is centimeters offside. It is the obvious off-sides that have to be removed, and that can well be done with extra and better officiating. And the goal-line decision like the one involving Lampard’s goal can easily be spotted by an extra official.
Such a system involving extra officials has already been successfully tested by UEFA, and clearly shows that intrusive video replays are unnecessary.
As it stands, there is a pressing need for something to be done to remove the disgusting playacting and terrible officiating blunders. But I am not convinced that video-technology is the definitive solution to the problem as everyone seems to believe. Use extra officials, penalise faking more heavily, do everything you can to minimize human error and to remove major blunders.
FIFA, of course, always get it wrong. Their decision to rule out video-technology forever and not trialling any new advances is plain stupid. And saying that using technology for goal-line decisions would lead to technology used everywhere for all kinds of decisions is plain ridiculous. FIFA is a mind-numbingly dumb organization, but …
Let us not hastily come to the conclusion that technology is the perfect answer, even though the fact that FIFA does not support it is a very strong argument for it’s use.
—
So, would video technology damage the game? Can we accept ‘time outs’ in football the way they’re used in other sports? If we do introduce it to what extent should it it be used? For goal line incidents like Lampard’s or, for example, Thierry Henry’s handball?
How do officials and administrators decide when an incident should be referred to a video official? I think the majority of people accept that we have to use the technology available to us in some way, the main issue is how.
Your thoughts?
