On the Ball 17 - A Step too Far or just the beginning?
Poor England performances and questionable tactics aside, one of the biggest talking points from the successful South African World Cup was the ‘goal' not awarded to Frank Lampard after his 38th minute shot during the England Germany match. Some may view it as fate finally catching up with England 44 years on from Roger Hunt's strike in the 1966 World Cup Final.
Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA, apologised to the England team in the aftermath of the match and claimed that the incident had convinced him to reconsider putting the issue of the use of goal-line technology onto the agenda of the next board meeting planned in October of the International Football Association Board (IFAB).
The much rehearsed debate is whether technology would ruin football, whether it should be used for certain decisions, and whether actually some human error is all part of football's unique appeal.
Extent of Use
Many believe that if technology is used to assist referee's and their assistants in making decisions about whether a ball crosses the line, there will also be calls for the use of video evidence for other decisions. Take the example of the World Cup Mexico vs Argentina game. Carlos Tevez scored a goal from an offside position. A replay of the goal was then shown on the huge screens at the Soccer City Stadium in Johannesburg which clearly showed Tevez was offside. After seeing the replay, (which was shown against the rules) the Mexicans urged the referee and linesman to change their minds. The problem that faced the officials was that they were not allowed under FIFA rules to take account of the video technology even if it was clear that an unjust decision would occur. Therefore the goal stood much to the anger of the Mexican players, management and fans.
The question remains as to the scope of the technology. Chief executive of the Football Association of Wales Jonathan Ford doubted whether football was "really ready to embrace that full technology? If you start [with] the goal-line technology where do you end?" Clearly, Tevez was offside just as it was obvious that Lampard's shot had gone over the line. However, FIFA's stance after the World Cup was that technology should not be used to overrule offside decisions but a ball crossing the line could be different. The reason for the distinction is that some believe technology is best suited only for goal-line incidents.
"Goal-line incidents are the only decisions which are entirely definitive and the answer can be provided to the referee within 0.5 seconds of the incident happening, this makes a clear distinction between goal-line and other decisions. Referees want goal-line technology. It would be there to help them, not to replace them." Dr Paul Hawkins, co-designer Hawk-Eye
At present, it appears that if technology is going to be embraced by FIFA (and it is a big if), it will only be for goal line decisions.
Cost
At the IFAB Annual General Meeting in Zurich the board voted on the introduction of goal-line technology but the proposal was blocked by Northern Ireland, Wales and FIFA (only England and Scotland consented) as too costly to implement. Hawkeye and Cairos however (two of the leading goal line technology companies) have offered to install the systems for free in return for the right to enter into sponsorship agreements for sponsors logos to appear when a decision is referred. For example, Rolex often sponsor the use of Hawk-Eye in tennis competitions. Presumably however, these systems are just one part of the overriding cost of the process. It is also not clear who would have the responsibility to pay for the technology, but critics of the IFBA decision point to FIFA's £1.7 billion profit from the World Cup this year as proof that affordability should not really be an issue for the world governing body.
It also leaves the question of whether technology will be implemented in all leagues across the world, or perhaps only in the top divisions. Lower leagues with fewer resources may not have the financial means (even if part of the technology is provided free of charge) to implement the technology. This could create a two tiered technology system of the have's and have not's.
Human Error
The mistakes of officials have been cited as an attractive aspect of football matches:
"No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?"
Sepp Blatter, FIFA President
President Blatter raises an interesting point. Do refereeing decisions need to be 100% right all of the time? Is human error actually attractive, thus prompting talking points which make the game more enjoyable if also more controversial? Surely, everyone makes mistakes (coaches selecting the wrong formation or a player missing a penalty)? The difference is perhaps because issues of fairness and justice are more relevant if something blatant like a ball being kicked 1 metre over the line occurs. Many argue that referees should be aided to make the right decisions and if that means a few more breaks in the game, then at least a correct decision is the outcome.
As an alternative to technology based solutions FIFA is also actively considering the introduction of two more pitch-side referees. Last season's UEFA Europa League competition trialled two additional referees stationed on the goal line, near to the six yard box. It seemed that prior to the World Cup and the goal line fiasco in the Germany England game, FIFA were leaning towards the two additional referee solution. Popular opinion is now moving towards technology to solve such injustices.
Other Sports
Technology has been introduced into various sports in recent years. In tennis, there are two different systems to question line calls: MacCAM and (the more popular) Hawk-Eye. The trajectory of the moving tennis ball is recorded by several court-side cameras and an accurate representation of its path is calculated. Players have the opportunity to unsuccessfully challenge three times per set (plus once more if in a tie break). In Rugby League in the UK, video replays are used to assist in decisions and in the NBA video replays can be used to determine whether a shot is released before the shot clock has expired.
The one big difference between football and the above sports is the relative stop-start nature of the games. Football fans are attracted to the game because of its non-stop action. Any delay in processing decisions would have a massive impact on how the game would be played. If FIFA were to change its mind and allow the introduction of goal-line technology to assist referees, decisions will have to be almost instantaneous.
Conclusion
Goal line technology appears back on the menu. It would have certainly helped prevent instances:
- in the Premier League such as Roy Carroll's ‘claw back' of Pedro Mendes' shot in a 2005 Premier League game between Manchester United and Tottenham; and
- in the Champions League such as Luis Garcia's decisive goal for Liverpool against Chelsea in the 2005 Champion's League semi-final.
FIFPro (International Federation of Professional Footballers) recently surveyed clubs participating in the UEFA Europa League last season. 70% of clubs responded negatively to the introduction of two more referees, whilst 90% were in favour of introducing goal-line technology. Tijs Tummers, technical committee secretary for FIFPro, said that FIFA's refusal to introduce goal-line technology was "unacceptable". Unfortunately, the IFAB (in July) went against the wishes of the players and decided that various new competitions would implement the two extra referees experiment for the UEFA Champions League, the Asian Football Confederation President's Cup, the French League Cup, the UEFA Super Cup as well as domestic competitions in Brazil and Mexico.
Football players, fans, coaches, and referees alike all now await the conclusions of the IFAB's October meeting to decide whether new proposals will lead to technology being given a leading role in assisting referees.
Written by Daniel Geey and Mohammed Karim
About our Editor
Daniel Geey is a solicitor in the Competition and EU Regulatory Groupat
FFW. Daniel has a keen interest in sports law and has experience
indealing with English Premier League Rules and broadcasting revenues.
Hehas written various articles which have included competition
issuesrelating to the Premier League's television deal as well as
papers onEuropean football broadcasting rights, club ownership,
takeover codeissues as they
relate to football clubs and copyright issues regarding football
broadcasts.
Daniel Geey
e. daniel.geey@ffw.com
About FFW
The FFW Sports Group has, over the past six years, establisheditself as
one of the leading providers of legal advice to the sportsindustry. The
Group acts for sports bodies and regulators, marketingagencies,
sponsors, sports brand owners, broadcasters and professionalclubs. Our
expertise in sports sector ranges from advising onregulatory and
disciplinary issues to advice on TV and media rights,sponsorship and
sports marketing, the acquisition and funding of sportsbusiness, brand
protection, betting and gaming, merchandising,ticketing, endorsement,
litigation and stadia development. Thispublication is provided for
information purposes only and is not asubstitute for detailed advice on
specific transactions and should notbe taken as providing legal advice
on any of the topics discussed, norshould it be taken as creating a
solicitor-client relationship betweenthe reader and Field Fisher
Waterhouse LLP.
this is subject always to the terms and conditions applicable to theparticular website(s). Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP is not responsiblefor the content or operation of
third party websites.
© COPYRIGHT 2009 FOOTBALL AID