It took a series of poor line calls in the 2004 US Open to act as the catalyst for change when it came to the use of technology in tennis. If the disallowed England goal against Germany proves the same catalyst in football, then, whilst it is disappointing that Fifa have been reactive rather than proactive, at least football will change for the better in the long run. However, Fifa may decide to stick to their guns, and not allow this incident to change their decision. If they take the later approach, they may use the following arguments to justify their decision, each of which I will respond to:
1) HAWK-EYE IS NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH
This is simply not true. Hawk-Eye has been independently tested by the English Premier League and the IFAB (International Football Association Board), and shown to work in all instances tested. These tests included having many people around the ball as it crosses the line. The official press statement after the IFAB meeting in March 2010 accepted that their decision was not because the technology did not work, but because of the fundamental issue of whether technology is good for the game. Despite this, more recently Sepp Blatter did justify their decision on goal-line technology by stating that Hawk-Eye is not accurate. We dispute this analysis.
2) FOOTBALL IS BEST OFFICIATED BY HUMANS, AND THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SOLUTION IS A BETTER WAY TO GO
This solution has had mixed success in the European League. Whilst additional assistants would have resolved this incident, if you look at a large number of goal-line incidents, many balls only cross the line for a fraction of a second, and no human is able to fairly officiate these incidents, regardless of where they might be standing.
Advertisement
3) FOOTBALL IS A BETTER SPORT WITH CONTROVERSY – THIS IS ALL PART OF THE DEBATE IN THE PUB AFTER THE MATCH
Maybe in 1966, when broadcast technology was far inferior, it was interesting to debate if it was or was not a goal. Things have moved on since then, and the only debate following this incident will be: “Why don’t the governing bodies do something about this?”
4) THE TECHNOLOGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE, AND GOAL-LINE TECHNOLOGY WOULD HAVE TO BE AVAILABLE AT ALL LEVELS OF THE GAME
The technology would be an attractive new sponsorship opportunity, as it is in tennis. Tennis makes money from Hawk-Eye, by selling the sponsorship of Hawk-Eye for more than Hawk-Eye is paid to provide the service. The same would be true in football. If you only adopt technology if it is available at all levels, then you will always progress the sport at the pace of the slowest. The biggest games are much-hyped, with the results of vital importance to nations and clubs, and so football has an obligation to ensure that destiny is in the players’ own hands. Everyone knows that the technology is available, and not using it undermines the credibility of the sport.
5) WHERE DOES IT STOP? IF WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY FOR GOAL-LINE DECISIONS, DOES IT GET USED FOR OFFSIDES, HAND BALLS, ETC, AS WELL?
Advertisement
Goal-line incidents are the only decisions which are entirely definitive and the answer can be provided to the referee within 0.5 seconds in the incident happening. This makes a clear distinction between goal-line decisions and other decisions. Referees want goal line technology: it would be there to help them not to replace them
More information about Hawk-Eye can be found at www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk