Goal Line Technology: Which Side of the Line Do You Fall On?

July 30 1966: 11 minutes into extra time in the World Cup Final, Geoff Hurst’s shot strikes the underside of the cross bar and bounces on the goal line.

Tofik Bakhramov of Azerbaijan awards the goal and sends England on their way to World Cup glory on home soil.

Tofik, erroneously labelled ‘the Russian linesman,’ entered English football folklore and the most famous and long running debate about the legitimacy of a goal was born.

After a meeting of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) in Zurich on Saturday, FIFA announced that the concept of utilizing technology to determine with certainty if a ball has or has not crossed the line would not be pursued.

Arsene Wenger expressed his disappointment at FIFA’s decision, stating his support for goal line technology and indeed technology in general, claiming technology was necessary to ensure ‘justice in football’ and to prevent ‘fans from going home feeling cheated.’

Wenger has strived to develop a highly skilled group of players who employ pace and technique in the pursuit of victory. Contentious decisions on offside, off the ball incidents and 50/50 decisions on corners, free kicks and throw ins (if reviewed during a game) would often find in the Gunners' favour.

Less technically gifted sides who scrap and scramble their way to draws and rare wins arguably have a vested interest in maintaining current referring ambiguities.

Wenger proposes that technology could potentially be applied to any part of the game. While this may see more decisions go Arsenal’s way, what result would the inevitable interruptions have on their free flowing, high-tempo game? Surely the benefit of winning more minor decisions would be outweighed by the cost to their style and form.

Does anyone remember Pedro Mendes’ enormous looping clearance drop into Roy Carroll’s goal?

We all watched with a mixture of disbelief and amusement (unless you’re a Spurs fan) as the keeper succeeded in clawing the ball out of the (far) back of his net, thereby convincing the distant referee and linesman that he had prevented the goal?

This is a perfect example of when a computer chip or another assistant next to the goal could easily clear up any confusion.

But where do you draw the line? Thierry Henry caused massive controversy last year when his deliberate handling of the ball led to France’s winning goal in a World Cup qualifier against Ireland. Could video replays have been called upon to disallow the goal? Possibly.

Where next? Policing simulation during a game? Checking to see which team touched the ball last before corners or throw-ins? Surely a step too far.

Fortunately, like your mum and dad when you were six, FIFA and the antiquated IFAB exist to make these decisions for us, all for our own good.

The IFAB is comprised of the football associations of Wales, Scotland, England and Ireland, who each have one vote in the decision making process on amendments and alterations to the laws of the game.

There are eight votes in total and FIFA posses the other four. According to Scottish FA chief executive Gordon Smith, the delegates at Saturday’s meeting viewed two presentations on potential goal line technological innovations, after which the issue went straight to a vote (apparently without debate).

While England and Scotland voted for the technology to be explored further, Ireland, Wales and all four FIFA delegates voted against further debate of the premise.

FIFA general secretary Jérôme Valcke was quick to announce the following:

“Technology should not enter into the game. It was a clear statement made by the majority of the IFAB. The main part of the game should be humans — players and referees.

“If we start with goal-line technology, then any part of the game and pitch will be a potential space where you could put in place technology to see if the ball was in or out, and then you end up with video replays. The door is closed.”

The door is closed? Strong stuff. The scientists who were working on the computer chip in the ball option obviously need to get down to their local job centre and sign on.

For once, the odd mixture of self-seeking football politicians and blazer-wearing FA old boys appear to have reached the right decision.

It may surprise Arsene Wenger, but the element of human error that sometimes leaves fans ‘feeling cheated’ is an integral part of the rich tapestry of the World Game.

We have all been on the wrong end of a refereeing howler and trudged home cursing our luck. What Wenger and others are quick to forget is that someone else is the beneficiary of an inexplicable mistake and are counting their blessings accordingly.

Counter-intuitively, Mr Valcke said of the issue: “Questions will always come, we just hope they will not come in the final of the World Cup.”

Ironically, the last World Cup Final will always be remembered for Zinedine Zidane’s head butting of Marco Materazzi, out of sight of referee Haracio Elizondo. It was heavily suggested that Zidane’s subsequent dismissal was as a result of advice to Elizondo from the fourth official after he viewed television replays of the incident—something expressly forbidden by FIFA.

If Zidane had remained on the pitch and inspired France to victory, the clamour for incident referrals from Italy and others would be deafening.

In my opinion FIFA have made the right decision. Refereeing fallibility is a fundamental aspect of the game and cannot be compromised without compromising the game itself.

However, if FIFA truly believe this, they should welcome a contentious decision in the World Cup final, which is the biggest stage in the world and would be the ultimate test of this principle. Just ask anyone who saw the 1966 World Cup Final.