Chelsea vs. Liverpool: Controversial Ending Proves Need for Goal-Line Technology
Andy Carroll thought he had tied the score late in the second half for Liverpool when his header appeared to beat Chelsea goalkeeper Petr Cech. But, the assistant referee determined it was not a goal, and the Blues held on for a 2-1 FA Cup final victory.
The Carroll no-goal was further proof that football needs to implement goal line technology in all competitions.
Below is a video of Carroll's attempt on goal.
Nearly every sport in the world — even Major League Baseball, which is very careful about interfering with the human element of the game — has some form of instant replay.
Should goal line technology be used next season?
There's no good reason for football not to use the great technology we have at our disposal. It's better to stop the match and correct a call of massive importance like a goal decision, then get it wrong and deny a club a shot at a cup title.
Even though Carroll's attempt on goal appeared to never fully cross the goal line when watched again on replay, there still needs to be goal line technology to ensure the call is correct every time.
Andy Carroll thinks he has equalised as his header hits the bar and bounces down, but TV replays show that the ball never crossed the line.— TheFA.com (@thefadotcom) May 5, 2012
During England's round of 16 match against Germany in the 2010 World Cup, Frank Lampard scored a goal which would have changed the complexion of the match, but it was not given despite replays showing the ball traveled well over the goal line.
FIFA needs to wake up and realize that there's too much on the line in these cup final matches to have controversies surrounding the end result.
These goal/no-goal debates don't make football look good, and they take the conversation away from the good football that these matches display.
Using goal line technology is a no-brainer for the sport of football, and after Saturday's FA Cup final, there's no reason to not use replay next season in all competitions.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?