Football’s shift to technology could have negative effects on the game

Could technology make these decisions a sure thing?

Let’s face it, the game of football is a high-pressure affair. Throw in two clubs playing a local derby or a must-win match, a crowd full of supporters going absolutely mental and a ball and you have yourself a potential recipe for disaster.

That’s not to say that every match between rival clubs or nations is like this, but you can be damn sure that there’s a good chance things could go overboard if the match official makes a critical ruling that one side very unhappy. And if, as it has been in some cases, that the ruling changes the outcome of the game, the referee better watch himself, because a firestorm is probably coming his way.

Such a ruling on the football pitch usually sparks a public debate that can lead to said match official being questioned to such an extent that the lives of the referee/linesman involved are in danger. England’s Euro 2004 quarter-final tie against Portugal fits the bill, as it was marred by controversy when Sol Campbell’s seemingly winning goal was ruled out by a foul on Ricardo, the Portuguese goalkeeper.

The referee at the time, Urs Meier, who overruled his linesman to cancel out Campbell’s late effort has since received threats against his life by outraged England supporters. The Swiss official received more than 16,000 abusive emails and was subsequently given police protection and sent into hiding for a week, away from his wife and children. The decision effectively knocked England out of the European Championships and gave the host nation a semi-final place that ultimately led to spot in the final against Greece. The clear argument is that a basic form of technology such as that used in the Rugby Union would have provided the game with a different result and England with their first semi-final since 1996.

The idea that the introduction of technology in football would aid the referees and their assistants in making the correct decision is a largely disputed issue, with people far greater than I having differing opinions. Governing bodies though seems to be doing their best to rid the sporting world of human error, with Hawk-Eye being a prime example.

With Cricket seemingly struggling to strike a balance between human and machine decisions, is it likely that the world of sport is going to have to choose between the two. What though are the reasons for introducing a system that could clarify a decision one way or another? From Geoff Hurst’s second and England’s third goal in the 1966 World Cup final and Diego Maradona’s famous ‘Hand of God’ in 1986, to more recent examples such as Pedro Mendes’s infamous lob against Man United, there has always been a demand for change.

There has always been a cry for justice from those whom the decision does not favour, but bitterness aside, many of the fans would argue against a technology that would be so conclusive. For generations, the decisions of match officials have united the world’s population in conversation. The arguments provide us with something to discuss over a drink at the pub, and gives the so-called professionals that appear to be more qualified than us something to talk about at half-time on the TV.

Although it seems the English usually bare the brunt of dismal decisions, the Spanish too have every right to feel aggrieved about poor calls that will live long in the memory of all involved. The Spaniards have terrible luck in major international tournaments, dating back to USA ’94 when Italy’s Mauro Tassotti’s inexplicably elbowed Luis Enrique  and went unpunished. The decision, coupled with Spain’s play, eliminated them from the competition.

The fact that Tassotti later received an 8 match ban was of no consolation to Spain. The nation’s bad luck continues, in 2002 the Spanish were knocked out by host nation South Korea on penalties despite scoring 2 legitimate goals in the ninety minutes of normal time. Both goals were wrongly disallowed, the most controversial was Fernando Morientes’s headed strike that was ruled out as the linesman saw winger Joaquin dribble the ball out of play before crossing for the clinical striker…no-one else did. This is yet another incident that could have been different if there was a form of technology available to officials.

All this being said, would half of these matches and incidents still be lodged firmly in the memory of football fans across the world had these decisions been correct? The answer is almost certainly, NO. The simple fact is that injustice in football is not something that can be seen as wholly negative. It would be inaccurate to expect officials under such pressure to arrive at the correct verdict every time, and the fact that they so clearly don’t provides yet another dimension to a sport that has such a fantastic history.

By getting rid of the ref and introducing technology you would change the beautiful game as we know it. But would it be a change for the better? I don’t think so.

Topics: General, General Football News

Email This Post Email This Post

More

4 Comments

  1. FF

    I’m not sure this deserves any answer.

    “Governing bodies though seems to be doing their best to rid the sporting world of human error, with Hawk-Eye being a prime example.”

    Rubbish. They seem to be doing their best to avoid introducing technology.

    “but bitterness aside, many of the fans would argue against a technology that would be so conclusive.”

    Many ? Probably. Most ? I doubt it.

    “For generations, the decisions of match officials have united the world’s population in conversation. The arguments provide us with something to discuss over a drink at the pub, and gives the so-called professionals that appear to be more qualified than us something to talk about at half-time on the TV.”

    OK, then I propose bring back witch hunting. That’d give us a much better subject of conversation.

    “Although it seems the English usually bare the brunt of dismal decisions, the Spanish too have every right to feel aggrieved about poor calls that will live long in the memory of all involved.”

    Wow. Finally a sentence I agree with. Actually, they have a much better case of being robbed. England has at least one big positive, that controversial goal in the 66 final. Spain: WCup 02 and 94, arguably also 06, Euro 96.

    “The Spaniards have terrible luck in major international tournaments, dating back to USA ‘94 when Italy’s Mauro Tassotti’s inexplicably elbowed Luis Enrique and went unpunished.”

    That should read “Mauro Tassotti elbowed Luis Enrique and inexplicably went unpunished”.

    “All this being said, would half of these matches and incidents still be lodged firmly in the memory of football fans across the world had these decisions been correct? The answer is almost certainly, NO.”

    So ?
    I’d prefer to remember the 2002 WCup for a beautiful and hard-contested final Brazil vs. Spain, instead of for the mess that it was.

    “The simple fact is that injustice in football is not something that can be seen as wholly negative. It would be inaccurate to expect officials under such pressure to arrive at the correct verdict every time,”

    Explain how on earth this is an argument *against* technology.

    “and the fact that they so clearly don’t provides yet another dimension to a sport that has such a fantastic history.”

    Oh yeah, another dimension. Let’s not forget the human face.

    “By getting rid of the ref and introducing technology you would change the beautiful game as we know it. But would it be a change for the better? I don’t think so.”

    You failed to provide *one* single argument supporting this.

    Rubbish article, rubbish conclusion.

    March 19th, 2009 @ 11:43
  2. BD Condell

    Now, Now FF, there’s two sides to every argument!

    I’ve agreed with some of your points in the past, and still do. I can see both sides of this debate.

    I’m guessing you’re the classic Y generation profile. You want it your way or the highway, you want it to be perfect and indisputable.

    Take it from one who is around a lot longer…life is not like that and never will be and certainly sport and football will always fall short no matter what the model.

    I think the writer is trying to point out that he his happy to accept the imperfections and the controversy…even enjoys the fact that there are always many debating points. Many hold that view.

    There may be a middle ground, no doubt, but any assumption that technology will remove any controversy is flawed. We have it with TV at present and despite countless slow-motion replays from every angle there is weekly disagreement, even among neutrals, on what the decision should have been.

    It will never be perfect and most accept that, as in life.

    March 20th, 2009 @ 10:51
  3. FF

    > I’m guessing you’re the classic Y generation profile.

    I don’t know what you mean by this.

    > You want it your way or the highway

    In this case yes. As in some others, but that’s not the issue here. I firmly believe the video ref is the future.

    > you want it to be perfect and indisputable.

    I wish. It’s not about being perfect but about being better than now (plus about agreeing that as it is now it sucks).

    > Take it from one who is around a lot longer…life is not like that and never will be and certainly sport and football will always fall short no matter what the model.

    Never said anything else. If you can find a comment of mine that says the video ref will be perfect, I’ll eat my hat and send you a video.

    > I think the writer is trying to point out that he his happy to accept the imperfections and the controversy…even enjoys the fact that there are always many debating points.

    Doesn’t look like it. At all. I didn’t take issue with any of this. But if he starts saying that the officials are doing their best to introduce technology, and cites hawk-eye – why on earth would anybody say this ? Last time I know, they said they won’t even accept this much. Has this changed ?
    Anyway, his point was that he thinks the video ref would do more harm than good. Which is fine by me (him thinking this, that is) except that, as I said, IMO he didn’t make any point to support this.

    > We have it with TV at present and despite countless slow-motion replays from every angle there is weekly disagreement, even among neutrals, on what the decision should have been.

    I think I said this a few times before, professional refs aided by video should be much better than everyday people.
    Anyway, so much the better, it means controversy wouldn’t go away. So one of the fears of the author is baseless. We can have the video ref *and* something to talk about. ;)

    March 20th, 2009 @ 18:45
  4. FF

    On second thought. You’re saying that his point is that technology would be a change for the worse (this is what he says) because it would eliminate controversy. I agree, this is the general idea. So if you consider this to be a point (which I have a hard time doing), then OK, he does make one. The answer to this is a) in this idea we should bring back witch hunting, as I said, and b) as everybody agrees, myself included, controversy won’t disappear completely. Actually, I would imagine that among the general public, it will be little reduced, if any. Because we already have video. So, even if the video ref was perfect, we’d still have something to talk about. What will go away for good, hopefully, are moments like the Hand of God, or that infamous penalty call for Gerrard against Atletico.

    March 20th, 2009 @ 19:08

More from SoccerLens
Content SoccerLens
Soccerlens offers a free weekly newsletter with: Soccerlens is read by over 1,000,000 readers each month - come join the community!