On Technology in Football

I did a search (though it was not exhaustive) to see if this topic had been the subject of any threads in the Discussions forum, and couldnt find any, so here is my 5 cents:

First though, I would ask readers to Click here read an article which forms the basis for this post.

I will however, for those too lazy, or with time constraints, include quotes from the article.(from the Guardian)

So here goes:

I find that the game of football, has suffered, more than gained, from not incorporating more technology into the game, or changing rules often enough to counter the negative tactics that currently abound.

The Greeks winning the Euro Cup, with a side that played low quality, highly defensive, or in other words "ugly" football, is a perfect example of how teams can win, without jugo bonito forming a part of their play.

Milan being eliminated because of a referee error, that a 30 second replay could have decided, is another example.

The Champions League semi-finals contained three of the most vibrant, attacking teams in Europe - Barcelona, Arsenal and AC Milan - and possibly the four best players in the world - Andriy Shevchenko, Samuel Eto'o, Thierry Henry and Ronaldinho. We should have drooled over football for the ages, not endured a fandango of shirt-pulling, freefalling and injury-feigning, with only two goals in 360-odd minutes.

Might I add that one was controversially disallowed: Which replays show to be perfectly valid?

What life has taught me, is that when "older persons" are charged with governance, they focus their efforts more on maintaining the status quo, than in making changes...why? Why should they? They have few years left, and want things to be "as they remembered them" and not "an improvement over the past".

Sepp, and the UEFA chief are perfect examples of this, and their united reluctance to implement something as simple as a microchip in a ball that would determine if it went over the goal-line is a perfect example.

Forget what the traditionalists tell you: football's laws have always been tinkered with, almost from the moment they were formulated by the FA in a dingy London pub in 1863. They've had to be; for players and managers can be a cynical, conniving, cheating breed....

The history of football rules is one of exploitation, followed, several years later, by correction. Until 1891, for instance, there were no referees or penalties, because it was assumed that a gentleman would never intentionally foul. Instead players would appeal to, then debate with, touchline umpires for justice. But by the 1870s, players were making "vexatious and unmeaning calls [for fouls] ... on the most frivolous pretexts," according to the Sportsman, a popular paper of the day. A decade later, the argument for neutral on-field referees had become overwhelming, and the laws were changed.

So the rules can be changed, so lets change them then!!!!

I gave the example in another post, somewhere, of the excuses that: the game at the highest level is exactly the same as that played on dirt pitches in the poorest countries...to be total bull****.

The similarities dont even start with the ball...as in Jamaica and other "developing countries" a football is anything that can be kicked without injuring the foot...as opposed to the US$100+ balls used in the UCL for example.

Barefeet are not the same as US$200 Predator Absoloutes, bare shins are far removed from US$50 shin guards...and I could go on and on..the point is, we can no longer use this "same as" excuse in order to exclude technology...because at the extremities, the game cannot be described as anything but "having some basic similarities".

A ref in each half of the field wouldnt hurt either..neither would replay technology, or a microchip to eliminate uncertainty with regard to close goal-line calls.

The article goes on to suggest "sin bins" and wider goals... though I admit to not being so gung-ho about these innovations, I am not adamantly against them either.

The obvious - and most contentious - way to do this is by increasing the size of the goals. It might smack of SoccerBall USA, but why not? After all, the average man stood at just 5ft 2in tall in the latter part of the 19th century when goalpost sizes were laid down in law - while the average Premiership keeper is now 6ft 3in. At the very least you could test it at semi-professional level, with perhaps a minor adjustment to move the posts six inches higher and a yard wider.

Another highly-flammable suggestion - sin bins - also deserves serious consideration. The almighty gap between a yellow and red card actually makes it rational for defenders to body-check, scythe and take out opponents in promising positions, picking up a professional yellow, because conceding a goal is far worse. That can't be right. The possibility of 20 minutes in the sin bin - with a yellow card chucked in - for cynical fouls would change a player's incentives and, ergo, their behaviour too.

Thoughts anyone? (Hopefully this topic isnt overly cerebral for our posters here)

Great post Warro. You wrote what I have been saying for the past 2 years or so, but have been too lazy to write a post as good as this. Rep Points to you

We won't see any technology until the regime of Blatter & co is finally over. They are living in the 60's. Its like they don't see that the game is changing, that there need to be rule changes.

Great post, once again.

it works in rugby so why not

I think going to video replays would interfere with the rythm of the game too much...

how many times could a team ask for a replay? should they have only 1 request per game? throw a red flag like in the NFL (american football)?

I'd rather have 2 referees, one covering mainly one half of the pitch, but not limited to it... kinda like the NBA (basketball)

Originally Posted by almilan

it works in rugby so why not

because rugby is supposed to have pauses... unlike football...

Originally Posted by SANT

I think going to video replays would interfere with the rythm of the game too much...

how many times could a team ask for a replay? should they have only 1 request per game? throw a red flag like in the NFL (american football)?

I'd rather have 2 referees, one covering mainly one half of the pitch, but not limited to it... kinda like the NBA (basketball)

I agree with you that video replay might end up chopping up the flow of the game but I am not sure that increasing the # of refs will make things any better than what they are now. The reason is that the human-factor still remains, I mean you simply increase the number of error-prone human beings, in most cases that's not gonna help much, if any at all. For example, in the case of Sheva's disallowed goal, Merk was very close to the situation but still messed things up. Other examples are those "fantom" goals, simulations for PKs, etc.
Maybe one thing that would benefit from having 2 refs is that players might restrain more from hitting an opponent behind the refs back as with two referees, it would be more dif to get away with "hidden" or rough fouls ... RvN beware .
I still think that we need cameras and MChips installed in the ball to track "fantom" goals. Also, more refs - either having two main refs or adding 2 more sideline assistance, or both - would be helpful too. But that, at least IMO, won't solve all issues. I personally think that FIFA could learn from the NFL a thing or two with those "challenges" that the coaches in the NFL have. Maybe not 3 but at least 1 as a beginning could be tested out.
Another thing that comes to mind is having refs watch replays of key situations like PK and goals on cameras placed near the pitch or somehwere in the press section, very much like it's in the NFL.
As for all this "breaking up" the game, well, having players arguing with the ref or his assistance is doing more or less the same, so not much would be changed there - with the proper technology, a situation could be evaluated in a matter of seconds by the refs aitting in front of the cameras on the side.

Did anyone ever thought about another lineman behind the goal? i think that would solve all the fake goals or disallowed goals situations, when the referre cant see if the ball crossed the goal completely. They do this in PK definitions, why not having it in al games. If they dont want to use technology, then use more humans.

Originally Posted by pa7uel

Did anyone ever thought about another lineman behind the goal? i think that would solve all the fake goals or disallowed goals situations, when the referre cant see if the ball crossed the goal completely. They do this in PK definitions, why not having it in al games. If they dont want to use technology, then use more humans.

Oh yeah I buy this.

Originally Posted by SANT

I think going to video replays would interfere with the rythm of the game too much...

how many times could a team ask for a replay? should they have only 1 request per game? throw a red flag like in the NFL (american football)?

I'd rather have 2 referees, one covering mainly one half of the pitch, but not limited to it... kinda like the NBA (basketball)

A video replay would only be called for dubius offside calls, or as with Sheva´s disallowed goal in the recent semi-final draw with Barca.

Like in the NFL, though that is a bad example to use...coaches I think are allowed one call per quarter, or per half (not sure, dont follow the sport at all anymore) where they can ask that a replay be used to judge whether or not the offense was really committed, or it the ref made an error of judgement.

Limit the review time to 30 seconds, or even one minute...and I doubt that it would prolong the game overmuch...

Originally Posted by SANT

because rugby is supposed to have pauses... unlike football...

they only use the video ref when scores are been disputed, it does not take long. football has pauses too goal kicks, throw in's

i think that they are using video cameras int the goal posts in the world cup.

Are they really?

yes that is what i have heard to make the game fairer and more efficiant

Not that I doubt you Kaka1899, but do you have a source...I havent heard anything about it...

so that means video evidence will be used then right??

i think having it might also disrupt the game, what i like about football is that its more debatable than american sports, fans make fun of other fans for not winnng, then those retaliate by saying they were cheated, it makes it more heated and passionate... american sports fans seem to agree with each other on everything, i dont feel they have alot of passion...

however it can get to be a pain in the ass... i think that it should be used in those situations where time is already being wasted over argument, did the ball cross the line, was it offside (only if a goal is scored)... if it improves the game then ill be fine with those two, if it doesnt fully solve it then i would add it to when a penalty is called or when a player is elbowed for example