You can imagine how the story goes. It’s match point, Andy Murray is losing a crucial tie break at Wimbledon. His opponent hits a ferocious back hand which the umpire decides was in. However, Hawk Eye proves that the ball was in fact out. The Umpire has this impressive tool at his disposal, so the game continues. Murray regroups and wins the tie break and the match. Andy Murray marches on at Wimbledon, Britain’s sports fans rejoice. Now, imagine this quite different scene.
It was the summer of 2010 and across the nation England fans are united in celebration. Liverpool fans and Man Utd fans, Spurs fans and Arsenal fans, Newcastle fans and Sunderland fans, arms around each other jumping up and down in pubs, clubs, living rooms and town squares throughout the country in celebration. Celebrating the fact that, having been 2-0 down, England had drawn level with Germany in the World Cup knock out stages. Thanks to a great strike from Frank Lampard, in off the cross bar, 1966-esque. Perfect.
Remember then the surprise/confusion when we all looked up at the TV again only to find that Germany were playing on? Of course we all know that the goal was not given and Germany went on to win 4-1. The frustration of the England fans heightened even more so by frequent action replays of the ball clearly crossing the line.
Germany deserved their win but there was still a slight sense of injustice. ‘Had we have pulled it back to 2-2 then the momentum would have been with us’. ‘The goal being disallowed took the wind out of our sails’. We were shown replays almost instantly of the ball crossing the line. A global TV audience could see the replay; everyone on the bench could see the replay. But the one person who actually mattered, the referee, couldn’t.
The debate about the introduction of technology in football is far from a new one. But it seems to become more and more relevant as football falls further and further behind other major sports.
Cricket relies on an array of clever gadgets to get the big decisions right. Hawk eye can determine the flight of the ball and whether it would have gone on to hit the stumps had it not have struck the batsman’s leg. Hot-spot uses infra-red censors to produce an image of the batsman, where the ball has struck is then identified with a bright spot. Meaning that it is easy (and practically instantaneous) to see if the ball has taken a nick on the way through.
Previously this would have been left to human eyes, but the technology was there so it was put to use. And Cricket isn’t ahead of it’s time. I could have easily have referenced Golf, NHL, NBA, Formula 1, the list goes on. This level of technology is out there, yet football seems reluctant to keep up. There is money in the game to implement goal line technology or video replays, especially at the top level. And yet we remain in the dark ages. Forget 1999, football is going to party like it’s 1899.
The more that the debate about goal line technology and using instant replays rages on the more it seems that their inclusion in the game would be popular. Managers have been quite quick to voice their approval. Unsurprising really when their jobs can be lost or saved by one wayward refereeing decision.
Stoke manager Tony Pulis recently put his support behind an idea where each manager is allowed to challenge one decision each half using video replays. Similar to the challenge system employed in American Football.
This weekend’s Super Bowl is one of the biggest, most watched sporting events in the world. And the interest in the NFL show piece has in no way diminished since replays started to play a bigger part. In the sport each Head Coach is allowed to challenge the referee’s decision on a passage of play up to 3 times in the game.
If after this the decision still stands then the team is deducted one of their time outs. Take this into football and the game would be stopped for all of 30 seconds while the decision is reviewed. No more than twice a half if the above proposal is used. Not a huge delay (especially considering that the game could be held up for a similar amount of time for an injury) but worth it if it eliminates game changing errors over goals, penalties, red cards and the like.
The main argument FIFA seem to put up against the use of technology is the fact that they want the game to be exactly the same at all levels. But anyone who plays Sunday league football with no linesman, a sloped pitch and a slightly flat ball knows that their game differs more than a little from the Premier League. Rugby participation in this country remains high at all levels. Certainly not suffering from the professional game using replays to aid the ref’s.
The technology debate seems to be a straight forward one. The fans, players, managers, pundits, everyone, seem unanimous in their desire to have the correct decisions made. The technology is there and in truth has been for quite some time. The money is there to implement this. And as the game gets quicker the amount of human errors from referees is going to go up. How could it not? So, FIFA, come on, why not?