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)