What's that You're Saying?
We might as well wade into this one, right?
By now you know that the 2010 World Cup has proved that football is still in the dark ages when it comes to using on-field technology; as though even the most casual observer of the game didn’t already know that. The missed Lampard goal (1966 but in reverse), the clearly-offside Tevez goal (likely costing Roberto Rossetti a chance at reffing the final), and then going back to some egregious decisions earlier in the tournament including that Edu goal, have all highlighted the utter buffoonery of Sepp Blatter and FIFA’s anti-technology stance.
The bizarre thing is that there are so few voices saying that the status quo is acceptable. As in, no one appears to think that way outside of FIFA. It’s so bad that even PTI and other talk programs have it right when they talk about this issue.
You see, all of the arguments against technology fall apart very quickly. The notion of a slippery slope is absurd when you consider that referees already use wireless systems, not to mention the fact that slippery slope arguments are preposterous to begin with anyway (why can’t we just make rational decisions at each step?). The fear of stopping play is silly because the technology now works almost instantaneously and key plays such as goals or red cards always result in stoppages anyway. And the argument that lower leagues do not have the funding to implement the technology makes no sense either: there is already a division in play, with the quality of pitches being a prime example.
Yet this has essentially been FIFA’s position for time immemorial, that technology will somehow ruin the game. As though having the specter of constant and game-changing blown calls is somehow preferable. Heck, even sacred American sports like baseball and basketball have implemented limited uses of technology without ruining the sports, and without taking out the “human element” that Blatter so respects (as Armando Galarraga can surely attest).
How bad have things become? Well the clamor reached such a heightened pitch that ol’ Sepp felt compelled to publicly apologize to Mexico and England for the blown calls in the Round of 16. Luckily, none of the decisions so far have really cost a team anything, as was the case with the blown Thierry Henry handball. The consensus (at least if you’re not an English player or manager looking for someone to blame) is that Germany and Argentina were by far the better teams over the weekend and deserved the results.
But that is all really beside the point. Whatever the solution — whether it be chip or Eagle-eye technology, or very limited instant replay for key plays such as goals or red cards, or a challenge system like in the NFL, or even something totally brand new — exists, or at the very least could be tested and put into place before the next World Cup. (I’ve written about my ideas previously, which is essentially to strictly limit the types of plays that can be reviewed.) But right now even Platini’s idea of added sideline refs would be an improvement.
What has been utterly baffling and frustrating to both ardent and casual supporters is the way that FIFA has refused to even enter into this debate thus far. Until Blatter came out today and said otherwise, FIFA’s official position was that the the topic wasn’t even going to be reviewed at the next board meeting in August.
Now, someone at Soccernet has pointed out that the rules committee actually includes members from Wales and Northern Ireland, and that you should blame them instead. But that completely ignores the way that FIFA works. It’s Sepp Blatter’s baby, as demonstrated by the apology today, and his word is golden as far as this issue goes. Until Blatter decides that he will seriously consider changes, no changes are coming. That is the true shame of all this, that it has taken a series of incidents at the World Cup to force Blatter to come to his senses. Although, Blatter’s words could easily be a smokescreen, and the 2014 World Cup could also come and go with the same kinds of egregious refereeing errors.
Finally, while on this subject and in rant mode, some of us found it interesting that Neuer and Tevez have not been pillared in the media as cheats the same way that Thierry Henry was. Can we all maybe agree that it is the players’ jobs to win and it’s the referees jobs to make the correct calls? And as for the referees, they are indeed human. I mean, Rossetti is generally regarded as one of the best referees in Europe and even he and his linesman missed an offside call. With the speed of football having increased over the past couple decades, why are referees being put in the position to make split-second correct decisions in the first place when an instant replay or microchip can easily get the right result?
In other words, all the ire should be directed at FIFA for creating this mess in the first place when these kinds of incidents appear to be avoidable.
It seems simple and quick for the refs to be able to use the replay from a stadium’s jumbotron–the refs in that ARG/MEX game were looking up at it almost immediately–no slowdown in the match. Then again, would some of the Npowership clubs that promote to the EPL not have a jumbotron to use at their home matches? Does Hull have one that Blackpool could borrow?
i would like a hockey/college football solution. two refs, two linesman plus one guy just watching the tv feed upstairs. the guy upstairs would just look at few things like goals.
It seems an obvious and simple solution. Hell, even the forth official could have a monitor handy to review things.
Nice work, Spectator, as was your previous piece.
-
As Clementona said in the prior piece, there’s no reason any of these suggestions don’t work except Chief Douchenugget doesn’t want to implement them.
-
I can only think of one reason why: either he or his family is developing some form of proprietary technology that FIFA will then license at an outrageously overmarket fee. It’s not a question of what the solution is, it’s a question of how fat Sepp gets paid.