2010 FIFA World Cup England vs. Germany: Does Soccer Need To Use Replay?

Ryne EberleContributor IIJune 28, 2010

Sure, Fabio Capello, it's easy to blame your team's loss yesterday on a referee's bad call on a goal that would have tied the game.

Never mind that your squad gave up two more goals after that and you failed to score in the 52 minutes following the no-goal. 

While it still can be said that had the game been tied, certain tactical changes could have been made.

But when you put that argument aside, it is still reasonable to say that the missed call just made the situation like any other missed shot scenario: regroup and try to score again.

Play defense. Stop the other team from scoring.

It didn't happen.

Debates over what happened in this game will endure for months if not years, and there's nothing we can do about it anymore.

We can't go back to the 37th minute when it was 2-1.We can't say whether or not England could've went on to win if the call had been correct.

All we can do is look at the big picture, the one that goes beyond the score of the game and who advances and who goes home. The big picture is that the most important soccer event (if not sports event in general) in the world is still being played without review technology and entire countries are getting the shaft.

There is replay and review technology in the Super Bowl and the NBA Finals, so why not in soccer?

One of the biggest reasons for not having the technology is that soccer has a running clock and a lot of time is spent setting up free kicks, corner kicks, goal kicks and dishing out penalty cards.

Going back and reviewing what happened would only take up more time.

There is also the argument that review technology would be detrimental to the "human element" of the game, which is the referees making calls with their own eyes.

But is preserving the human element worth a team being sent home due to a blown call?

I guess you'd have to ask England.