Football and technology: a marriage made in Hell or the inevitable truth?
Steve Bennett changed his mind at the KC in December
We should’ve known. This season has been no different to any of the seasons before it. Sooner or later, the age-old football technology debate becomes a central feature of pub discussions and television sensation.
Every year the pro-technology side of the argument seems to be getting more and more frustrated as other walks of life embrace technological progress while football’s authorities turn a blind eye.
This is not an in-depth analysis of the possible technologies available, just a brief overview of the debate surrounding them. Many arguments from all sides of that debate have been made on Soccerlens in the past and come highly recommended.
As always, the horizon is littered with incidents from up and down the English leagues but dominated by a small number of controversies.
Reading’s phantom goal against Watford ignited the debate in September (a decision which hasn’t prevented referee Stuart Attwell gaining a rather impressive promotion) and Hull City boss Phil Brown took a pair of bellows to the embers when he accused Steve Bennett and his assistant referee of (correctly) overturning a penalty decision based on ‘outside’ advice.
Video replays
Football technology could take many forms. Perhaps the most controversial is the video replay, a concept which brings with it the beginnings of video refereeing, in-game pauses and a whole host of related issues.
The game has in fact taken a backwards step in this regard. The dug-out monitor, made infamous by Jose Mourinho, is now banned from English benches. Of course, this prevents managers and team officials seeing contentious issues in slow-motion, but this is a double-edged sword: Chris Coleman pointed out in August that it also means managers are unable to review correct decisions and calm down as a result.
Revisiting the Phantom Goal decision in the run-up to Friday’s return fixture between Reading and Watford, Royals coach Wally Downes (no stranger to hilarious controversy himself) highlighted a fascinating point in the video replay debate.
It’s often suggested that video replays would make football too stop-start due to the lag between incident and final decision. I don’t buy that, generally. We can see replays and review decisions in seconds. But Downes effectively told the Reading Chronicle that the very possibility of a break would invite temptation into the equation.
Football, he says, would become abused by advertisers. Replays don’t slow down the game by necessity, but the new revenue stream becomes a dangerous one.
Goal line technology
One area which is very popular in this debate is goal line technology (GLT). It was tested at Fulham’s Craven Cottage before FIFA and UEFA controversially canned the research.
The attraction of GLT is that it tests, in theory, a black-and-white yes-or-no football variable. A goal is only a goal if the whole ball crosses the goal line - there is no room for interpretation, one of the main concerns for fans sceptical of replays generally. It can also reduce its output to a beep or a flashing light, or even to a buzz on the referee’s wrists. In other words, it’s instantaneous.
For and against
For the record, I’m pretty much against the over-use of technology in football (with some exceptions). The thing is, I’m not 100 percent decided on the issue, and even the opinion I have formed is based on little more than my natural propensity to defend football against all comers. So I asked a few others what they thought.
Gary Andrews sits somewhere in the middle. We’ve discussed this one over a beer more than once, and he believes that some decisions could be made with the help of technology, and also that referees should be fully miked-up. I’ve also written about hooking microphones up to the officials, but while Gary advocates a rugby-style public output, I’d prefer the recording to be made available only retrospectively to assessors.
Chris Applegate argues that video replays should be used at the top level, and that if rugby and cricket can do it, so can football. He’s got a point, but it raises the question of football’s role as a universal leveller. The laws and rules of football are intended to be applicable from top to bottom, a concern expressed by BriggySmalls when I asked his opinion.
Catherine Gee suggested that footballers should use hoverboards to heighten entertainment, but that just goes to show the dangers of crowdsourcing a topic.
One thing is for sure: the debate will go on and on, regardless of the implementation or otherwise of various technologies. The only question is whether I ever make up my mind on the subject.
Chris Nee blogs at twofootedtackle and Villa Offside.
Yeah, I’d definitely agree that, where possible, anything that keeps the game flowing and doesn’t lead to too much stopping and starting is preferable. However, there’s definitely a good argument for certain bits of video technology.
With the goal-line technology, that’s definitely possible - if the ref just gets a small beep in his ear when the ball crosses the line, that makes things nice and simple and won’t require a long stoppage.
Given that there’s often a delay of sorts whenever there’s a red card or a penalty, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have a video ref who can be called on if and only if the ref isn’t sure.
For example: the penalty that wasn’t against Hull. Steve Bennett could have had a quick conversation with the video ref, who would have told him no penalty (and, in the meantime, Sky would have shown plenty of replays anyway, so it’s not as if it’s slowing the game down).
Similarly, if a player commits a bad tackle and the ref isn’t sure whether it’s worthy of a yellow or a red or wasn’t as bad as it looks, he can ask for a second opinion from the video ref. Again, there’d probably be a short delay in the game anyway, so you’re not loosing too much.
Obviously, common sense applies here and refs shouldn’t be consulting for corners, throw-ins or every yellow card. But it just makes things that little bit fairer.
And I’m a big fan of public miking-up of refs because I think it’d have benefits both ways. We can to hear the thinking behind the ref’s decision, and it’d also pick up any bad langauge or abuse from the players towards the refs, forcing them to behave better on the pitch.
I also think Cat’s idea of footballers on a hoverboard is an excellent one and should be implemented immediately
I reckon football’s just fine as it is.
I am not convinced of the “laws and rules of football are intended to be applicable from top to bottom” argument - the exact same rules and laws are being applied in a video replay-enabled match, but just with better quality decisions. The standard of play at the top level is vastly superior to that played in the parks on Sunday league - and the quality of refereeing ought to match it.
Not even sure the video replay will have that great an impact - thanks to digital video technology, on TV and on the big screens you can get a replay pretty much instantaneously. It’s no longer than the timewasting the likes of say, Stoke, are employing these days. Besides, the vast majority of refereeing decisions are correct and it would only be used if the ref was unsure - so it would not happen very often.
Finally - and these are the most compelling arguments for it - the two biggest problems in the game in my view are diving and disrespect for the referee. TV replays would directly clamp down on the first, whilst if players knew the ref had areliable backup for contentious decision, they will have less cause to be aggrieved. At least - that’s the theory.
A non-technological approach that is being tested is adding two extra sets of eyes, one for each end of the field (special goal-area refs). One of the problems with simulation is that a referee is not often in a good position to see contact, and can only react to the results of contact (or non-contact) as the case may be. Additional eyes would help, both with diving and with indeterminate goals.
I personally like the idea of goal line technology. But video replays cause me to shudder. Football should be a fluid every moving game. That is an essential part of its elegance. (I don’t like it when broadcasters show replays of goals when the game has started up again and the ball is in play. Maybe I am too much the purist?)
> Sooner or later, the age-old football technology debate becomes a central feature of pub discussions and television sensation.
But nothing ever changes.
> the video replay, a concept which brings with it the beginnings of video refereeing, in-game pauses and a whole host of related issues
Not necessarily. As I’ve said a few times before here on SoccerLens. IMO we could have video replays without interrupting the game (too much). You can see the details here:
http://www.fairfootball.com/video_ref.htm
There’s also a nice talk on SL with BD Condell:
http://soccerlens.com/respect-honesty-and-the-big-bad-wolf/14452/
http://soccerlens.com/a-compelling-argument-for-video-referees/14883/
(There’s 2 links but it’s actually just one discussion.
)
I’m not saying I might not be wrong, but I’m still waiting for valid objections to my proposal.
> Given that there’s often a delay of sorts whenever there’s a red card or a penalty, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have a video ref who can be called on if and only if the ref isn’t sure.
The ref is almost never sure. Sometimes he looks very sure though - and makes the wrong decision.
we need to make video technology as one of the laws of the game if we have some problem like was that player tackled the opposition player and if the ball bounces over the line or not…
I have to say “no” to everything except perhaps the goal-line technology. Some of these plays move so fast and the goalmouths are so crowded that I don’t think an additional ref on the end line would really help too much, if that’s what’s being suggested. But if someone in an upstairs booth could have a quick look, then I see no harm in that, especially since the ramifications of such a decision are huge in football.
I am NOT in favor of replays for tackles, cards, penalties, etc. There are sooo many instances in which a ref “could” use the replay, that it would be abused… and let’s face it, I think most top-level refs are too “proud” to consult a video even when they should. And aren’t those (especially penalties) some of the most fun to complain/cheer about!? Hell, as a fan I need some sort of excuse when my team loses.. and I’d like to keep blaming the refs for a lil while longer….
I say start with awarding yellow/red cards after a game based on video-replays.
Then add this feature during games with the reserve referee informing the on-field referee of diving and other dirty tricks. We allow advantage on goal-scoring events and delay carding until ball is out of place - why not do this on diving??
Thanks all for your comments, it’s an interesting discussion.
@ FF - to clarify, in that first line you’ve quoted I simply meant that those issues arise in discussion, not necessarily the game.
I wondered when FF would show up. That’s my work done then!
> @ FF - to clarify, in that first line you’ve quoted I simply meant that those issues arise in discussion, not necessarily the game.
Yes, that’s clear. Everybody talks about it but nothing changes, and next season it all starts over again.
> As I’ve said a few times before here on SoccerLens. IMO we could have video replays without interrupting the game (too much). You can see the details here:
> http://www.fairfootball.com/video_ref.htm
Correction: it could most likely be done with practically no interruption at all.
Last year, we interviewed Ian Blanchard, Head of National Referee Development at the FA. Here was his opinion about technology:
Q:
Since we are discussing innovations in the role of match officials, technology enters the equation. At the 2005 U-17 World Cup in Peru, goal line ball chip technology by adidas was used for the first time. In December 2007, it was used at the World Club Championships in Japan. What is your opinion on developments such as this, along with video replay monitors, similar to ones used in American gridiron football, during the game itself?
Ian Blanchard:
“One has to understand the cultural makeup and history of football. At its roots lies the passion of the game, the excitement, and free flow passage of the ball quickly making its way from one end of the field to the other. The commitment of players challenging for the ball, the battle to dominate and keep possession are all attributes of this fantastic game of ours.
Of course when it comes to high profile wrong decisions, when relegation or promotion is at stake, questions are asked whether technology could play a part. In my mind we need to be open to anything that assists the match officials in getting those big, crucial decisions right. Provided of course such technology does not interfere with the fundamentals of our game as described above.
The electronic chip has still to be developed effectively but I do think it has the potential, provided of course that it is of benefit to the referee and aids the referee’s decision making.”
Link:
http://soccerlens.com/interview-with-ian-blanchard/5535/
Well, a decent opinion, in principle. I’d like to hear his thoughts on my proposal. But that’s probably not going to happen.
Thanks again for further comments.
Steve, that’s a really interesting interview - thanks for highlighting. FF, I’ve had a look at your site too. That should provide lunchtime reading and pondering for a good few days!
Glad to hear it. By all means, be my guest, and I’m very interested to hear your thoughts on it.