Sine Qua Non

Twitter

Follow us on Twitter »

World Cup blunders re-enforce football’s need for tech

Sponsorship | Sport | Technology

By Chris Hughes

England might not have beaten Germany over 90 minutes even with Frank Lampard’s ‘goal that never was’, nor might Mexico have overturned a rampant Argentina had Carlos Tevez’s goal been disallowed for offside after 25 minutes, but nobody will know for sure.

The fact remains that England were denied an equaliser in their much hyped match against Germany and Mexico were wrong-footed against Argentina as a result of incorrect refereeing and linesmen decisions.

Even German chancellor Angela Merkel was allegedly moved to apologise to British PM David Cameron at the G20 summit in Canada for the blunder. So can FIFA really sit idly by and watch the outcome of the biggest football tournament in the world be dictated by incompetence on the pitch when existing and proven sport technology is readily available and can be quickly implemented?

Rather than dissect what happened in South Africa yesterday afternoon, we thought it more appropriate to repost in full what we wrote on the subject back in March.

Football needs to wake up to the impact of technology (original posted in March 2010)

Is it arrogance or ignorance that makes the football authorities so intransigent? Or is it a question of “not invented here” that is stopping football from embracing a technology solution that will enhance credibility as well as ensuring fairness?

After the decision FA chief executive Ian Watmore was quoted as saying, "In the end it came down to a difference of opinion about whether you believe the future of football involves technology or not." He then stated that “some of the arguments were very powerful and persuasive”. If these arguments are led by the quotes on the BBC website from the heads of the Welsh and Irish FA’s then the leadership in the game is missing the point. Jonathan Ford, chief executive of the Football Association of Wales, said: "I was worried that you would end up with a stop-start situation where you review all decisions and I don't see that as part of the game." while Patrick Nelson, his counterpart in the Irish FA said "We very much appreciate the human side of the game, the debate, the controversy, that's why the board has taken this decision." Neither really holds water in any rational debate.

Whether we like it or not technology is in integral part of life, certainly in the developed world, so why should we resist it becoming part of sport when it undoubtedly adds value. Many sports have become big business. This means that not only are the passions of the fans at stake but so are large sums of money, as demonstrated by Birmingham and Portsmouth only hours after the decision was announced.

The debate has been going on ever since the 1966 World Cup, but the technology is now available to do a good if not a great job. Technologies like Hawk-Eye and video replays for a third referee do not detract from tennis or rugby. Some even argue that they add an extra dimension. Even the game of golf, as demonstrated this weekend at the Honda Classic tournament, has embraced technology and video replay for judgements such as the penalty that Graeme McDowell called upon himself whilst playing from a water hazard.

The point is that rule makers in sport should be enabling their sport not burying their head in the sand. Just as with any technology, while in general it brings benefits it can be used in a way that is detrimental to communities both large and small, so the challenge for leadership is to ensure that it adds to the game. Perhaps football leadership thinks that is too much of a challenge.

Comment on this Article >

Comments