I find the malarkey surrounding the so-called goal-line technology debate pretty tiresome. Mostly because to my eyes at least, opponents to a clear and simple improvement to the game either claim it will cause a significant break in play (odd because Hawkeye works its magic in tennis in about twenty seconds) or it will lead to a host of other forms of invasive technology (why, exactly?) or that the cost of the technology (£250,000) will be prohibitive for many federations and assocations (why can’t it be limited to tournaments proper until the cost comes down?). Opponents to goal-line tech are conservatives will never be convinced, and will simply cite a long list of “What ifs?” until you wish you’d never brought it up in the first place.
In any case, here I am bringing it up, but only to point out the absurdity of the status quo. And no, I’m not speaking here of Ukraine’s non-given goal, but the consequences that particular goal had for Hungarian referee Viktor Kassai.
While its often said that “errors in refereeing are a part of football, let’s just move on”, refs—who, it’s often forgotten, are human beings—suffer very real and sometimes morally dubious consequences as a result of so-called errors of judgment. This is a classic case:
Kassai, who missed Ukraine′s goal against England, was one of four match officials to be discarded by UEFA Wednesday for the rest of Euro 2012…
…[UEFA refereeing officer Perluigi] Collina indicated Tuesday’s controversial decision not to allow Ukraine’s goal, which television pictures showed crossed the line, influenced the decision not to keep Kassai on.
Kassai waved play on after his goal-line assistant judged wrongly that ball had not crossed the line.
The decision “unfortunately was a mistake made by a human being” but not the fault of Kassai, Collina said.
“We can clearly say he was not responsible (for the decision) but he would have come under pressure,” Collina said. “Keeping Kassai here for another match would have been difficult for us. He is one of our best referees … it is something very unlucky for him.”
So Collina admits that the referee, who relied on the judgment of his fellow goal-line assistant who himself was forced to make a decision beyond the ability of even the most observant and reactive human beings, was not at fault for the goal. And yet, he would have faced unidentified “pressure” had he remained on.
So, in other words, not giving ghost goals is the refereeing equivalent of the Kobayashi Maru test. But that’s football…why change it?
” Opponents to goal-line tech are conservatives will never be convinced, and will simply cite a long list of “What ifs?” until you wish you’d never brought it up in the first place.”
I tend to find those pro-GLT are just as immovable. And when posed questions about the logistics of it, will either end up just saying “oh but it’s obvious”, or just stop answering the questions because there isn’t an answer they can give that justifies their stance.
Every other advance into the game, from the introduction of crossbars, to using red and yellow cards to indicate to the crowd that a player has been booked and sent off have been fairly routine changes. Are there benefits? Yes. Are there drawbacks? No. Let’s do it. Most, if not all proponents of goalline technology haven’t thought it through.
The Premier League have already stated that if the IFAB approve it in early July, that they will adopt it for next season if they can. After a total of two games have been played under the system. Neither of which provided any goalline controversy. However, what happens when a Premier League side is draw away to a Football League side in the cup? Do we spend the £250k (per goal) setting it up for that match, only to rip it straight out? Or go back to the old fashioned way. Hawkeye is set up by installing the equipment into the roof (and presumably hoping that the wind doesn’t affect it too much). Which is fine until a side gets promoted without a roof on a stand (Portsmouth didn’t have one on their away stand when they first got promoted into the Premier League. Are they going to have to redevelop their ground over a summer? Be refused promotion to the League?
What about the Champions League? And World Cup qualifiers? The World Cup treats every qualifier the same. So you can end up with a situation where Swansea City v Norwich City has goalline technology, but France v Spain does not. But if France v Spain has it, then Nigeria v Gabon, Luxembourg v Netherlands and Brazil v Uruguay have to have it. But none of their national stadiums have roofs to install the technology, and at least one of them couldn’t afford the expense either.
Those critisims aren’t the only ones, but they’re the tip of the iceberg, but the best way to and the debate is to win the debate. So much better than putting your fingers in your ears and moaning about how conservative those who disagree with you are.
Finally, I’ll leave yoi with the most important question that needs answering. And that is – “What happens when goalline technology gets it wrong?”. I’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer to that question. The usual answer is “It won’t be wrong.”, which is wrong in itself, because goalline technology, like every other technology know to man, is only as fallible as the humans that created it.
“What happens when goal-line technology” gets it wrong?”
How would we know if GLT got it wrong? Are our eyes better suited to determining a good goal than a machine that can pause an image?
I think what you mean is that “what if video technology doesn’t give a definitive answer?”. In that case, you can say that you did your best. Without technology, you can’t make that claim. You’d take being right 50% of the time over 95%?
If broadcasters employ instant replays for viewers, there should be something to give referees a hand. There’s too much money at stake for this not to happen. And why would it cost 250k; can’t they just have an official sitting with the TV commentators and have him/her peek over their shoulders? The technology is already available.
I could care less about a Nigeria v Gabon qualifier; the other two matches you listed could easily afford it.
“How would we know if GLT got it wrong? Are our eyes better suited to determining a good goal than a machine that can pause an image? ”
GLT isn’t the same as video technology, so we’ll know if GLT is wrong by looking at the video images, like we do at the moment.
“In that case, you can say that you did your best. Without technology, you can’t make that claim. You’d take being right 50% of the time over 95%? ”
The GLT likely to be approved by FIFA has only been used in two full matches. Neither of which provided a goalline incident. In what way does that make the GLT accurate? The makers have claimed that, but people always make big claims about their product. If you needed heart surgery, would you like to be operated on by an untested machine where the makers claimed it would be 95% accurate, or a surgeon who has done this hundreds of time before?
“There’s too much money at stake for this not to happen.”
I put a lot of money into the game. Why don’t I get a say in this?
“And why would it cost 250k”
Because thats what the GLT makers are saying it will cost.
“If broadcasters employ instant replays for viewers, there should be something to give referees a hand. ” “Can’t they just have an official sitting with the TV commentators and have him/her peek over their shoulders? The technology is already available.”
Is it. You’ll be able to tell me whether this clearance was over the line or not: It’s at around 1:50 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CGraVSDTKI It’s from an obscure competition called the World Cup. Took me ages to find.
“I could care less about a Nigeria v Gabon qualifier; the other two matches you listed could easily afford it.”
FIFA treat every qualifer the same, so that every team has a fair chance to reach the finals.If a FIFA president treats the rich nations differently, then they’ll get voted out at the first opportunity, because the poor nations have the same vote as the rich nations, and there are a lot more poor nations that rich ones. Luxembourg can afford it, but as I said above, the GLT is installed in the roof. The Luxembourg national stadium has no roof. The Brazil national stadium – the Maracana – has no roof. And that’s the venue for the 2014 World Cup Final. So how is GLT going to be installed for the 2014 World Cup Final? With skyhooks? Stick it on a crane and hope it’s not windy?
Like I say, the pro-GLT argument is not one that has been thought through.
I love how being able to make a ridiculously long comments leads a person to believe they actually said anything meaningful or posited an insightful question. There are vast arrays of technology that can determine the position of things to within microns. Most won’t cost 250K and many are portable. You could even have the equipment monitored in real time by a live official on site or half way around the world if need be. Cost, time and accuracy are not an issue for such a simple use.
Dropping that ref is harsh. That ball was too close for a human being to call.
Officials at these tournaments work in teams. You have the same ARs and AARs for both of the referee’s group matches.
It wasn’t just the botched goal-line call by the AAR. The AR also missed a hugely obvious offside call leading up to that play. As soon as those two mistakes were made, Kassai and his team were finished, irregardless of how good Kassai is.
Same thing happened a couple World Cup’s ago with Graham Poll. He may have been the #1 referee at the time, but one of his ARs blew a big call and so he was done.
First, there is almost no such thing as a “hugely obvious offside call.” Off side is the most difficult officiating decision in any sport to get right. It requires a referee to be observing two separate points (often dozens of yards apart), and to match them up simultaneously at a given moment. Numerous studies have shown that this is almost impossible. Referees, through years of experience, have effectively adapted significant coping mechanisms to trick their eyes and brains into figuring out how to make this call. What’s remarkable is that they get it right more than 50% of the time.
Second, when the concept of offside was first developed, it was basically a gentleman’s agreement to not cherry-pick. In today’s game where the difference can be that of a boot-length judged in .3 seconds, and the consequences are a cup win or elimination it is an extremely difficult situation.
I am in favour of using more technology for judging goals, but I’m not sure if we can do the same for offside. But if we don’t, we are going to have to be satisfied with human shortcomings.
Finally – so Ukraine was offside by half a step? So what? If England is incapable of defending a one-on-two long-ball play that starts 40yrds deep in their opponent’s end, they deserve to be scored on. And that is what is great about football – even with the errors, most of the time we get the right results, because the qualities needed to win, usually override one or two poor decisions.
I have always been for GLT because I believe technology is there to improve things. However, the missed Ukraine goal kind of made me have second thoughts. The main thing is “where do you stop?” Imagine if we had goal line technology in that game, Ukraine would have gotten a goal that was offside, so where is the justice there? Is it “better” to have an offside goal count vs. have a ball that clearly crossed the line not count?
Once you head down the path of technology, it is tough to draw the line. Are they going to have technology to determine offside? What about handball? fouls? Red card? Corners? These things can all change the game as much as a goal (like that missed offside). By eliminating just one of the factors doesn’t exactly make the game better, nor does it make it more fair.
I am amazed that most of the talk is solely about the missed goal that wouldn’t have counted anyways if the refs got it right. I feel sorry for the ref but his assistants let him down big time. I don’t understand the whining from Ukraine nor UEFA’s need to apologize in this case. I know two wrongs don’t make a right, but in this case, the correct result came about and they should to leave it alone. This should not decide the GLT or not debate, there are much bigger issue than what happened in this match but of course, everyone is reactionary and lazy journalism takes over.
Kassai is a really good official, top of the refereeing chain in Europe, possibility the world. But agreed that the six officials on the pitch (including the 4th) are a team and his team had two strikes against him.
Kassai will bounce back in Champions League this fall but who knows about the AR or AAR….
Btw…love the Kobayashi Maru reference!
You know what else that can be done to compliment goal line tech? We can give red flags to each manager to throw on the pitch whenever they see a foul. Hell Roberto Mancini does an imaginary one at least twice a game. Or how about a faint yellow line that will float with the back line to aide refs with off side calls.
I have never heard of anymore make a kobayashi maru reference in the context of soccer.
you now have my heart.