2010 FIFA World Cup: Goal-Line Technology, End of the Debate

Let me start by making one thing clear: This is not simply a rant by an over-emotional and biased England fan.

I cannot deny that I am English, or that right now I am in a state that is quite probably over-emotional, but I also hope that I am objective enough to analyse this issue beyond the context of today’s game alone.

What happened today was wrong. Not because it happened to England, or because it happened against Germany, or even because it would have been the equalising goal.

This mistake was no more wrong because it was England v Germany, just like it was no less wrong because Germany should have put the game out of sight by this point or because they undoubtedly deserved to win the match.

The decision was wrong because it was just plain injustice, Frank Lampard’s shot was clearly well over the line and with the game at 2-1 it was hugely significant.

The fact that it happened at such a crucial time in such a crucial game only magnifies the problem that FIFA continually refuse to address.

Just this week, FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke gave a press conference in Johannesburg where he made the following statement:

“We can talk about refereeing decisions which, when you looked at them after the game, you could say were perhaps not good decisions. We didn't say you could have a zero fault system in the World Cup. Additional assistants referees could happen in 2014 to make sure these kinds of things are not happening.

It doesn't mean the use of video, that is definitely not on the table, but one thing we are discussing is two additional assistants to support referees to make decision-making easier and to have more eyes helping him to make such decisions.”

Maybe what happened today was another of those ‘perhaps not good decisions’, that can be easily eradicated by the addition of two additional assistants, new officials who are just as fallible as the existing officials and could possibly even disagree with the other assistant opposite them? That sounds like a great plan.

Sepp Blatter’s last public statement on this issue came back in March, and it was typical Blatter; contrived, clueless and downright confusing. Let’s examine every sentence of what the FIFA head honcho had to say on the issue:

"One of the main objectives of FIFA is to protect the universality of the game of association football... If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV."

Absurd. Universality doesn’t mean that the game at the highest level can’t have devices which would not be used at park level. The bigger the magnitude of the event, the more that is at stake, the further you go to ensure no mistakes are made.

You see it with the hawkeye system at Wimbledon, which is only available on certain courts, and throughout many other sports. No other sport has even remotely considered avoiding vital technology because it couldn’t be implemented right down to the lowest amateur level.

"No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?

Why give the responsibility to another human being? Because that human being has access to video replays from a variety of angles that give him a far better chance of making the correct decision, which is the whole aim of refereeing, to officiate by implementing the rules correctly ie. IF THE WHOLE OF THE BALL CROSSES THE WHOLE OF THE LINE, IT IS A GOAL!

"Fans love to debate any given incident in a game. It is part of the human nature of our sport.

Absolutely ridiculous excuse. Blatter and his cronies seem to take some sort of perverse pleasure in keeping football as archaic, or ‘traditional’ as they like to call it, as possible. Blatter’s claim that fans like to debate issues completely misses the point.

Fans like to debate great pieces of play, which players played well, whether the team’s tactics were right or who what changes should be made for the next game. This isn’t a debatable topic for fans, the decision is clear, as every TV camera showed, the ball crossed the line, and the only debate now is how the world’s most popular sport can continue to suffer under such a terrible governing body.

"The application of modern technologies can be very costly, and therefore not applicable on a global level... The experiments conducted by companies on technology in football are also expensive.

A complete smokescreen. As already stated, it makes complete sense to bring it in at the very highest level first, tournaments like the World Cup and the Champions League, which are rolling in money.

FIFA are reportedly going to make somewhere in the region of £1.7bn from this tournament, so to claim poverty is an insult to the fans who are spending their hard-earned money to travel to the World Cup and support their teams.

"The question has already been raised: if the IFAB had approved goal-line technology, what would prevent the approval of technology for other aspects of the game? Every decision in every area of the pitch would soon be questioned.

Why would this have to be the case? FIFA make the rules, so they can choose which technology is implemented at which time. The goal-line technology is absolutely the most crucial because it is crucial to an accurate decision on an incident that is guaranteed to be worth a goal one way or the other.

Even if it did extend to other areas, the time spent compared to the consequences of making a woefully incorrect decision in a game of this magnitude is worth doing. Just ask Mexico fans how they feel about Argentina’s first goal tonight.

"Association football is a dynamic game that cannot be stopped in order to review a decision. If play were to be stopped to take a decision, it would break up the rhythm of the game and possibly deny a team the opportunity to score a goal.

What on earth are FIFA talking about? Using video replays to determine that the officials have missed the fact that the ball clearly crossed the line could possibly deny a team the opportunity to score a goal?

The award for ‘reverse logic of the year’ goes to Sepp Blatter.

"It would also not make sense to stop play every two minutes to review a decision, as this would go against the natural dynamism of the game."

If you implemented goal-line technology, you’re talking about maybe one of these decisions every few games, not every few minutes. These decisions are hugely important, but not hugely frequent. The argument over delaying the game is weak to say the least.

Tens of thousands of fans each spent thousands of pounds travelling thousands of miles as well as taking weeks off of work to follow their team around the world couple. Would any of them argue against spending a matter of seconds to ensure justice is served on a decision that big?

All in all, the entire statement is pathetic, but not surprising given the sort of men that run FIFA. Over the years, the allegations against FIFA’s current top dogs have ranged from fraud to bribery, voting fixing to ticketing scandals.

There is seemingly no way for any individual league or competition to challenge this and implement the system without FIFA’s approval. Both the English and Scottish FAs voted in favour of the technology in a recent vote, but their hands are tied, at the command of FIFA.

Maybe this incident will change something, maybe FIFA will look again at this issue, but then again maybe they won’t. It can’t have been a fun afternoon for Sepp Blatter, who was at the game. Even for someone so used to being universally despised by the football world, it must have been hugely uncomfortable.

The fact that the mistake was so blatant and happened on the biggest stage in football, the World Cup, means that maybe, just maybe, this can be the catalyst for change.

That is the hope of football fans across the world, but with FIFA’s track record, we may have to wait for many years and mull over many more blatant errors before anything gets done. Only time will tell.

It seems only fair that the final word should go to FIFA, the primary defendant in this case.

At the same press conference where he announced FIFA’s rejection of video technology, Jerome Valcke also acknowledged; “We knew this is where criticism would come.”

At least they got something right.