FIFA Approves the Use of Goal-Line Technology for 2014 World Cup
After arduous years of waiting, world football's governing body, FIFA, has allowed for the use of goal-line technology for the 2013 Confederations Cup and 2014 World Cup.
The decision comes after the technology was successfully implemented in a trial run during the 2012 FIFA Club World Cup.
A statement released on the official FIFA website reads:
After a successful implementation of Goal-Line Technology (GLT) at the FIFA Club World Cup in Japan in December 2012, FIFA has decided to use GLT at the FIFA Confederations Cup Brazil 2013 and 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.
The aim is to use GLT in order to support the match officials and to install a system in all stadia, pending the successful installation, and pre-match referee tests.
The much-awaited decision brings to fruition many movements to try and introduce technology to assist referees in getting the decision right.
There is no denying that efforts such as Frank Lampard's piledriver in the 2010 World Cup and the Sulley Muntari "ghost goal" of 2012 were incorrect decisions that could have been made right had technology been available.
One would hope the chosen technology would prove to be a simple method that does not disrupt play, which has been a point of contention in the past.
Do you support the implementation of GLT?
All early accounts point toward the use of a wristwatch system, where officials would have a sensor in their stopwatch to determine whether the ball had crossed the line. In essence, deciding upon the fate of an attempt would be as simple as looking at one's wrist.
According to FIFA, "Interested GLT companies will be invited to join an inspection visit to the Confederations Cup venues, currently scheduled for mid-March, with a final decision due to be confirmed in early April."
All eyes have now turned to UEFA President Michel Platini, who has not yet made a decision for implementation of GLT around Europe. Let's hope, for the sake of justice in the game, that this move proves positive.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?