There’s a rule-of-thumb in lefty British football journalism: if a TV pundit believes something, it must be wrong. Hence, When Saturday Comes’ James de Mellow’s masterstroke in opening his anti-video goal-line technology op-ed with a quote from BBC talking head Mark “Lawro” Lawrenson:
“Thank you Sepp Blatter,” said Mark Lawrenson moments after Frank Lampard’s shot crossed the line without a goal being given at last summer’s World Cup. “I hope he’s here and squirming in his seat.” As the head of an organisation that plumbed new depths of farce during its presidential election two weeks ago, there are many reasons why Blatter should be squirming. His caution regarding the adoption of goal-line technology, however, is not one of them.
What follows is the familiar, party-line argument against video replay or goal line tech: it violates the “purity” of football, a game in which the Champions League final should be played in the same spirit as a dusty back lot pick up match in Kinshasa. If that purity involves not giving goals when the ball crosses the line in plain sight to everyone on Planet Earth save the referee, then so be it. Part of the “fun” of soccer we’re told is arguing over missed calls for years and years (although good luck explaining that peculiar “fun” to fans of a newly-relegated club).
But de Mellow specifically goes after the argument that says because there’s so much money involved in top flight football, video-technology is indispensable in protecting everyone’s investment:
Football maintains an essential purity that is important given how much has changed off the field since 1992. Those changes are often brought out by the pro-technology lobby, who say that incorrect decisions are more intolerable than ever given the money that now swirls around the game.
De Mellow expertly rebuts this bit of false logic, how neither fans, players, clubs nor managers lose money from referee mistakes. He then goes on to dispense with the idea that video-tech would increase players’ respect for the ref (a new one to me), and then goes on his merry way.
It’s true that some managers advocate for video tech because where a club finishes in the league table now determines whether it will be solvent in future seasons. But there is another, simpler argument de Mellow ignores: some football supporters may simply want teams to win based on the laws of the game, not based on the hilarious possibility of a hand-ball in the box in a World Cup quarterfinal, no matter how literarily-rich it might be.
To my mind, the only important argument is whether video tech will a) not significantly interrupt the flow of a match and b) correct for human error. If it can do neither of these things, it should be consigned to the dustbin of football history. But to bring in overwrought, abstract ideals like “purity” into a sport which fans pay thousands of pounds to watch every year is naive.
Football isn’t going to go back to what it was when Dixie Dean was a strapping lad. Players aren’t going to start having to drive lorries any time soon, and the FA Cup Brought to you by Budweiser isn’t going to regain its old magic. So let’s stop talking about video tech like it’s some sort of purity “Alamo.” Opponents of video tech (and de Mellow is no different) always say, “it’s just a game,” to which I would answer, “Yes, it is just a game, not the embodiment of all that is sacred and pure. Introducing a technology that would ensure teams that score are awarded goals won’t change that.”
Love the thought behind this.
“To my mind, the only important argument is whether video tech will a) not significantly interrupt the flow of a match and b) correct for human error. If it can do neither of these things, it should be consigned to the dustbin of football history.” Completely agree.
Really all that is needed are two cameras along the goal line and possibly a camera behind the net.
All that should be disputed is whether the ball crosses the line, NOT the way in which the ball goes in. For example, refs ruling would stand for the Henri goal.
If they are concerned with “purity” then maybe there should be more focus on stopping this epidemic where professional athletes, grown men, fall down at the gentlest touch. Notably affected: All Latin players, Dutch players, winning teams, etc.
A lot of people confuse in game video technology with goal line technology.
NOT the same thing.
In game video is a hornest nest which will disrupt the flow of the game while goal line tech will be used so rarely you wont notice it.
Think of when the last time YOUR team (not some team in Urugay you saw on youtube) was affected by a goal line decision. Most likely it hasnt happened all year and very often a couple of years.
I am against video technology but goal line decisions are fine simply because of frequency.
Now go on and try to figure out how many games youve been to where a goal line decision was made. You will see that it will not affect the game flow.
Well, except for once every few years which is less often than our home field sees streakers run across and stop the game.
If the EPL is the Barcralys League, then it should be the FA Bud Cup.
Goal Line tech makes soccer just a bit more honest of a game. We can’t have that now can we?
Maybe Blatter is in some gambling syndicate’s pocket.
Blatter in a plonker, get rid of this pathetic 4th official they are trying to introduce behind the box and stick a camera in the goal, end of!
There is no way video technology would interrupt the flow of the game.
1st of all, lets not act like football is 90min of pure football 100 percent of the time all the time always. While the clock is continually ticking, lets not forget dives and fouls stop the flow of the game considerably. Especially with all the acting after the foul. Now its not about who is actually fouled or not, its all about selling the foul. Look at Barca, the top team in the world right now. Its absolutely riddled with divers and actors. Look at how much time Alves, Busquets and Iniesta eat up every match. And its not just Barcelona. These days every team has a player or five who roll around after every foul. Its hard to argue for flow of the game when this happens in every top team match.
2nd. Lets not act like it takes 10 minutes to look at a tough call. Actually, with video replay it doesn’t even take a minute. Have a small team act as a 5th official. Have their only job be watching the replay or strategically located cameras. Put on earpiece on the center ref so they can talk to him and done. Big calls like a goal crossing the line, whether a player dove or was fouled, or tough offsides calls would realistically only take about 10-20 seconds max. This is a lot faster than have the officials huddle up and make a call and it would be a lot more accurate.
3rd. It leads to a more honest game. Games will be harder to match fix in terms or refereeing decisions. And honestly, that is a problem in many leagues today. And players will have less incentive to dive, since there is a good chance the “5th official” will immediately see the dive and the center ref can show a yellow card in full confidence or give a red to someone who deserves it in full confidence. Picture the Dani Alves dive against Pepe earlier this year. Pepe was shown a red card and it completely changed the game. Had this technology been available, Dani Alves could’ve been shown a card instead and the game would have gone on as it should’ve been: 11 v 11. Iniesta diving in the WC final and getting Heitinga sent off and Van Bommel a yellow? Nope. An easy yellow card for his first dive and the game is forever changed. De Jong would have clearly been given a red card if the replay was there too and that would have also completely changed the game.
These people who think it will interrupt the flow of the game act like it would be like American football or Basketball, where the center ref goes and looks at the video himself over and over. It doesn’t have to be like that at all. This is 2011. Football should act like it. Its what the fans deserve. Its what the honest players deserve. And it should be what the game deserves, after all these years of entertaining us.