Tuesday 17 April 2007

And another....

Taken from http://www.blackburn.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=57960

Once again Blackburn Rovers, who are by no means the only side who suffer this, were on the wrong end of a controversial
goal line decision at the weekend. It HAS to be time for technological help surely?

A recent Vital Blackburn poll asked your opinion, most felt (71% in fact!) it was time the referee's and their assistants had some technological help, and in the day and age we live in surely this is right? You can weigh up all the arguments for and against but the argument for far outweigh those against.

Technology is quick and easy, they use it in Rugby and Cricket as we all know, I believe to a degree also in Tennis now, or at least were thinking about it? So it's time in some instances it came into
football. These replays would cause no less of a disruption than the arguments that break out when such things occur anyway would it! People push and shove, remonstrate with the referee and linesman so by the time that's sorted a good minute or two, usually longer passes. You'd be long underway again with the aid of technology.You have the argument that if you introduce technology into one area others soon follow, this doesn't need to be the case.

In Cricket they only get help with tight run out call and occasional catches, not LBW calls so why can't we just have it for tight goal line calls and maybe nothing else?Help in other areas would be useful, for debatable penalties etc. but maybe you lose something from the game if you have replays for this? I know it may seem a little contradictory by saying "dodgy penalties" should stand, but "dodgy goals" shouldn't but at least with a penalty you still have a 50:50 chance of the goal not being scored, debatable goals are 100% for or 100% against (depending which side you are on) with no reprieve. Goals WIN and LOSE matches, goal line technology will insure the right calls are made and will only take seconds to check.Football is more than just a sport, it is a business like it or not.

The calls that are wrong can cost teams millions, may cost us just that and a place in Europe as a result, which could in turn lead to players possibly leaving? These calls could easily be corrected but aren't but could so easily be stamped out; it's time to act. I've said it before but will say it again, wait until a World Cup, European Championship, Champions League or
FA Cup is decided in such a controversial manor, we'll all be using this technology in a flash but we shouldn't have to wait for this for action to be taken…The argument of funds for this comes up but with the amount of money in the game now UEFA, FIFA, the FA, whomever should be able to budget such technology across ALL levels of professional football.

Tuesday 20 March 2007

An interesting article.....

As seen on Sportingo.com

The camera may be an exact science, and it may never lie. But while it works in rugby and cricket, the fuss that goes with it is too much to justify its use in football.

Think of the most significant individuals in sporting history and most people will come up with names such as Pele, Carl Lewis or Bjorn Borg. But only the most knowledgeable of sports fan could tell you why Tofik Bakhramov could be added to this list.

It was not as a competitor or coach that he gained his fame and yet Mr Bakhramov has the honour of having a national stadium named after him. The year was 1966, the venue Wembley, the occasion the World Cup Final between England and West Germany - and Tofik Bakhramov was one of the linesmen.

With the game finely balanced at 2-2 in extra-time, the ball fell to England striker Geoff Hurst, who struck a fierce shot that ricocheted off the underside of the bar and onto the goal line. Bakhramov decided the ball had crossed the line, England went on to clinch their only World Cup and the rest, as they say, is history. Until now.

Recent technology suggests that Hurst’s shot did not cross the line and if available to the referee at the time, would have changed the course of football history (no ‘Three Lions’ song for example!).

Such incidents have decided the destiny of many different sporting events over time. Football provides the most high-profile examples, whether it be Maradona’s Hand of God or more recently Pedro Mendez’s wonder goal that never was against Manchester United.

And so the debate about technology in sport rumbles on. In recent weeks, we have heard that Everton manager David Moyes is keeping a video of poor penalty decisions against his team, while a team of lawyers are investigating whether Horacio Elizondo, the World Cup Final referee, sent off Zinedine Zidane after his fourth official studied a replay of the incident.

The England cricket team, despite being comprehensively beaten in Australia, can point to poor umpiring decisions that have contributed to their demise. In tennis, we had the bizarre scenario of Tim Henman signalling from the court to John Lloyd, working for television, to check whether video replays of certain points had shown incorrect decisions against him.

John Inverdale, a sports journalist I have great admiration for, called for increased use of technology in sport after reflecting on another year of poor decision-making by the men in the middle. “In 10 years' time our children will laugh at the suggestion that once upon a black-and-white yesterday, the onus of responsibility at multi-million pound sporting events was entrusted to a single individual who may, or may not, have been giving 100 per cent of his attention to the crucial incident that determined the ultimate prize,” he wrote.

In an article for the Daily Telegraph, Inverdale points to the use of technology in rugby to ensure that the correct decisions are made. He says that technology can be used in a quick and efficient manner that would not hold up the game, which is the primary concern of many when the subject of technology arises. I have to disagree with him, however. I have watched rugby with great interest since the introduction of the video referee and, yes, on occasions it has really come up trumps.

Who can forget Rob Howley’s dramatic try at the end of the 2004 Heineken Cup Final that was awarded correctly by the video referee? However, a disturbing trend has developed. It seems that any slightly dubious decision in both rugby union and league is now referred to the video referee. This means that very obvious tries are not awarded on the spot, while time is taken up by incidents where all but the most optimistic fan would concede that a try had not been scored. In short, referees on some occasions are becoming frightened of making even the more routine decisions, preferring instead to send the incident upstairs lest they make an error. And with sport becoming increasingly high-profile, watched by millions and tons of cash riding on results, who can blame them? All of which means that we have highly disrupted matches that can lead to sterile viewing.

Is it not the very essence of sport to have exciting, free-flowing games in which there is great drama and on some occasions, controversy? And would such technology transfer well to other sports? The main reason rugby has had success with video referees is that players generally have respect for the officials. The game, more so than other sports, is also prone to many stoppages for lineouts, scrums, bloodbins and so forth. Can you imagine the scenes if a footballer goes down in the penalty box in front of the home fans and the referee has the option of going to a video referee?

I have no doubt that players around the world would be surrounding referees at every incident, demanding that he refer to the man in the stands. The respect from footballers to referees just is not there. We are so used to footballers (and managers) harassing referees during recent years but the only thing that stops this spiralling out of control is the fact that the referee is solely in charge, his decision is final and once it is made it cannot be undone. Once we have a situation where the referee is not totally in control of the game, any remaining faith in his ability would be eroded completely. With football being a fluid sport with very few major stoppages during a match, these extra breaks in play would be detrimental to the sport as a spectacle.

There is perhaps more potential for success in cricket as, like rugby, there is respect for the officials and the pace of the game is slightly slower. Of course umpires can refer to a video umpire for run-outs, which are easy and quick to adjudicate. But what about other decisions? Leg befores, catches and so forth? Test match cricket relies on getting through 90 overs per day to create a competitive match and any delays would slow the occasion right down.

Like in rugby, I fear that umpires would become increasingly prone to referring to others in fear of making the wrong decision. Being denied in sport by a poor decision is tragic but a part of the game. It is what makes players, managers and supporters alike stronger in character. It makes winning so much more satisfying, revenge so much sweeter and viewing so compelling. I believe the main role of referees is to referee, not to refer. Just let them get on with it.

Fans Views On The Debate

After coming up at the weekend once again, I made the decision to find out what the 'average football fan' thinks about the debate at hand. I have posted a few of the replies below but what became clear was the number of fans who would support the introduction of new technologies.

"Hughesy is absolutely right. TV replays to aid decision-making works in cricket and the two codes of rugby: why not football? And before the FA make the point Mark quotes about the Dog and Duck and the Feathers, nobody pays to watch them. To fork out 30-odd quid to watch Rovers against West Ham and have the game turned on blatantly incorrect decisions is almost akin to ripping off the fans. We don't pay to watch referees and linesmen: we pay to watch players play to the besr of their ability. It costs more than ever these days to watch football, so every care should be taken to make sure such major decisions are correct. The technology is there: use it"

"Let's face it, everyone in the country knows that decision for the second 'goal' was a joke but moaning about it will get us nowhere."

"I've always said that a referee can be excused for not seeing something that has happened. No one can spot everything. But there is no excuse for seeing something that never happenned."

Let me know what you think.

Hughes Demands Video Replays

Once again the debate over technology in football has come up after Blackburn were 'robbed' after a controversial goaline decision went against them in their match against West Ham on Saturday.

The Blackburn manager has told football's governing bodies, "if you don't bring video technology in now then you never will"

Bobby Zamora was the hero for the Hammers, grabbing the winner in the 75th minute, but TV replays showed his close-range shot never crossed the line, which has prompted Hughes to call for the introduction of goal-line technology.


"If this doesn't get goal-line technology through, they'll never bring it in because today was an opportunity when technology would have cleared it up very quickly, and we'd still be in a position to win a game we've actually lost.

"The technology is there so why don't we use it?

"I know the guardians of the game will say that when the Dog and Duck play The Feathers on a Sunday morning they don't have goal-line technology, so you can't bring it in because it's not level for everybody.

"I've been on these conferences when they've put that point, but they have to understand the numbers we're talking about now, and these are decisions that have a direct impact on people's seasons.

"If we can help the officials then surely we should try to do it because the three guys out there needed help.

"That decision could very well affect the future for ourselves, West Ham, Charlton and Man City, or whoever is around the relegation situation. It's had a huge bearing on everybody's season."

Hughes also believes referees should be made more accountable for their decisions.
"There is no accountability," fumed the Rovers chief.

"The officials today will be driven away in a blacked out people carrier and next week they'll get another game, whereas we've got two weeks to dwell on the events of today, and it may well have a huge bearing on how well we do this season."

Tuesday 13 March 2007

Football Focus tests Video Technology

As the momentum behind the introduction of goal-line technology quickens - how close are we to potentially having all key decisions in a match decided by a video referee? And would it be technically possible?

Those are the questions that BBC's Football Focus programme attempted to answer during last week's match between Watford and Charlton.

To see how a video referee in football would work, Focus installed facilities for the match, including two extra cameras for both goal-lines, to examine incidents from a variety of angles.

The part of the referee on the day was played by an observer on the television gantry, and when something happened on the pitch that he did not get a clear view of, he would radio the video referee.

That man was former top-flight referee Paul Harrison - who made decisions after watching replays in a television truck outside Vicarage Road. Harrison was referred to on three occasions - twice to check if goals had been scored from an onside or offside position and once to see if Charlton keeper Scott Carson had carried the ball outside the penalty area.

These three incidents were decided upon in only 27 seconds, which would have caused minimal disruption to the flow of the match.

A further incident occurred when Harrison spotted some shirt-pulling in the area when watching a replay of an incident from the main coverage.

This decision to award a penalty however, would have taken two minutes to decide. Harrison said: "I think it's a way forward. It was within seconds when we realised what happened in the majority of incidents and we could have easily relayed that back to the officials."

As things stand, with the International Football Association Board (IFAB) giving the go-ahead for the development of goal-line technology at a meeting in Manchester on 3 March, it must surely only be a matter of time before we see that in action.

And if that move proves a success, it could well open the floodgates for football to join rugby league, rugby union and cricket to allow a number of decisions to be taken by video referees.



Taken from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/football_focus/6431757.stm

Tuesday 6 March 2007

An Upadate

Just a quick follow up on the proposed move to bring technology intop football taken from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6404755.stm

As the situation stands, a number of systems will now be further developed, including one proposed by the Premier League and Hawk-Eye, who have systems in cricket and tennis.

FA chief executive Brian Barwick said: "We all believe that goal-line technology is the way to move forward. If we are going to introduce it, it has got to be 100% accurate."

Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson added: "We are pleased with the reception that our presentation got and that we can progress to further stages of testing the Hawkeye system."

The IFAB has laid down four criteria for the goal-line technology systems:

  • That technology should only apply to goal-line decisions.
  • That the systems must be 100% accurate.
  • That the signal to the referee must be instantaneous
  • That the signal is only communicated to the match officials.

Adidas and German firm Cairos will also continue to develop their system where there is a microchip inside the ball.

Although I stated previously that the game should remain simple I still stand by this. However it seems that the technolgy's introduction seems imminent. Therefore I will say that if hawk-eye technolgy was installed, if the signal to the referee was in fact "instantaneous" then its effect on the decison making will be positive and its effect on the game's flow should be minimal. Nevertheless there still appears to be wider issues that need to be considered which i have outlined throughout the blog.

Let me know what you think.

Coleman backs move towards technology

Someone who always seems to have something to say about the referee is Fulham manager Chris Coleman.

He believes thay the move towards using technology in football will eventually help prevent decisions going in favour of bigger clubs.

Football's rulemakers have given the Premier League the green light to push ahead with experiments in goalline technology, and a Hawk-Eye system is set to be installed in Fulham's academy.

Coleman is among the managers in favour of referees being given a helping hand, and he hopes there will eventually be no doubt about debatable decisions in the penalty box.

'I can understand the big clubs not wanting it,' said Coleman. 'When you go to their backyard and are looking for that penalty in their box or whatever, it takes a brave man to make that decision in front of 40-50,000 people, even 75,000.

'You look down the years when smaller teams went to the big clubs and how many penalties they get or controversial goals given or taken away from them. It's hard for the officials and when it's 50-50 you rarely get them.'

Referees' chief Keith Hackett and Premier League general secretary Mike Foster met with the International Football Association Board (IFAB) in Manchester on Saturday to present the Hawk-Eye system.

The proposal involves a camera taking 600 frames a second on the goalline which is analysed by computer and sends an immediate signal to the referee's headset or a device on his wrist, so there appears to be some way to go before there is technology on offsides or penalty decisions.
Coleman, however, welcomes the move towards technology.

He added on BBC Radio Five Live's Sportsweek: 'Officials need more help, it's not easy to swallow when you get a bad decision against you, particularly if it results in a goal given against you or taken away.

'We're the only sport which doesn't have visual analysis, it would take 60 seconds maximum for the big decisions. In a game you rarely get more than three big decisions so I can't understands why we don't have it.'

Former Premiership referee Graham Barber believes officials would embrace technology.

He said: 'Officials aren't arrogant enough to say 'we don't need any help', they just want to go home knowing they've got 100% of the decisions right. If they have assistance to help them I'm sure they'll be happy.'

Taken from: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=412313&cc=5739

Monday 5 March 2007

Green Light For Goaline Technology

THE USE of technology to help rule on whether a ball has crossed the goalline moved a step closer yesterday when the International Football Association Board, the game’s lawmakers, agreed that technical research should be pursued with a view to incorporating suitable devices into the game’s rules .

The FA chief executive Brian Barwick, who hosted the IFAB meeting in Manchester, said: “We all believe goalline technology is the right way forward, and there is a general consensus on that.”

Following experiments with different detection systems in Italy’s Serie A and at Fifa junior tournaments, enthusiasm for a system that will rule on goalline controversies has grown. Television camerawork has become so sophisticated that the difficulties facing referees and their assistants in judging goalline decisions is emphasised in one league or another across the globe almost every week.

Earlier this year, Manchester United were involved in their second high-profile controversy in as many seasons, when a header from Nemanja Vidic was ruled out by the assistant referee during the FA Cup tie against Portsmouth.

Television footage showed the ball at least half a metre over the line before it was cleared by Pedro Mendes. Mendes himself “scored” a goal against United for Tottenham at Old Trafford in 2005 that Roy Carroll “saved” from well behind the line. The officials found in the United keeper’s favour only to be proved wrong by video replays.

Most famously, there is the case of 1966, when on the way to a hat-trick in the World Cup final, Geoff Hurst struck the crossbar and the ball bounced down on the goalline. The goal was, of course, given to England.

The IFAB have laid down strict guidelines for companies developing the equipment to monitor goalline activity.

Yesterday they set the conditions any technology must meet to gain their and Fifa’s eventual approval. They will insist that any system is foolproof; that the technology may only be concerned with goalline decisions; that the ‘goal’ or ‘no-goal’ signal to the referee has to be instant, so as to prevent disruption of the flow of the game; that the signal would be communicated solely to the match officials.

The IFAB do not want to follow the path of television umpiring decisions in cricket, which have become their own dramatic cliff-hangers. Football, the thinking, goes, is a sport with a different pace, and they do not want it pausing for second opinions.

Aspects of the technology, though, may borrow from other sports. Difficult line decisions in horse-racing and athletics are assisted by technology, and the developers of the HawkEye equipment used in cricket and tennis have worked with the English Premiership on a system for goalline decisions in football.

German engineers have also developed technology which uses a microchip inside the ball to detect whether or not it has crossed the line.

Friday 2 March 2007

The Premier League WILL back video technolgy at tomorrow's board meeting

Premier League chiefs will urge the sport's rule-makers this week to consider using video technology pioneered by Hawk-Eye to end uncertainty over goal-line decisions.

Hawk-Eye systems are used to judge dubious line calls in tennis, and also on television coverage of international cricket.

Referees' chief Keith Hackett and Premier League general secretary Mike Foster will present proposals to the International FA Board meeting in Manchester on Saturday.

Hackett's video presentation will include the Manchester United v Tottenham two seasons ago when goalkeeper Roy Carroll clearly spilled a long-range shot from then-Spurs midfielder Pedro Mendes over the line but a goal was not given.

Hackett said: 'We are working with Hawk-Eye in order to seek approval from the International FA Board to run an experiment to test out a version of goal-line technology.

'We believe we are putting forward a strong proposal that underlines what is available and how we want to experiment to gather data to accurately determine the quality of the product.
'We are suggesting a possible alternative to the other proposals with a reputable business company, Hawk-Eye, which already operates in top-level tennis and cricket.

'The system operates with cameras and computers linked directly to the referee, providing immediate information without interference, so we believe it fulfils all the criteria.'

The Premier League believe around 10 matches in the top flight have an incident where goal-line technology could clarify whether the ball had crossed the line or not.

Hackett said it was often impossible for assistant referees to have the correct viewing angle to judge.

He added: 'I will demonstrate to the IFAB the example of Manchester United v Tottenham two seasons ago where there was a shot from a long distance.

'The brief for the assistant referee is to stand level with the last defender and for him to have also been in the correct position to judge whether the ball had crossed the line - well he would have had to be an Olympic 100m record holder to have been in that position.'

Some purists believe goal-line technology is a step in the wrong direction but Hackett is insistent the time has come for the game to modernise, but only in terms of judging whether it is a goal or not.

He said: 'Football is ultimately about scoring goals and the question I would ask, is would people be happy with the World Cup final, the most prestigious match there is, being decided by an inaccurate result? We want goals to be a decision based on fact, not opinion.'

FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who is the most important member of the IFAB, has made it clear he supports the introduction of goal-line technology.

Blatter said: 'When a goal is scored the goal should be given - this is a priority and there must be a system.'

The IFAB will also hear updates from other experiments - the one being championed by adidas is a `smartball' system with a micro-chip inside the ball, while the Italian and French federations are proposing separate systems using cameras linked to computers

Technology is Not the way forward!

Having run this blog for a while now, I would like to post my opinions on the issue at hand. However I would also like to hear from you. I would be very interested to see whether you agree or disagree with part or all of what I have to say.

With a number of recent incidents in the premier league there are once again calls for the use of technology to decide on controversial decisions in games:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6352493.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6164412.stm

Football is a simple game but at its best it is quite frankly the most entertaining live sport in existence. No other game flows, brings the same passion, loyalty and outright excitement as football and quite honestly, over complicating it, risks spoiling it.

The game is so simple in fact that it can be played anywhere from the lowest park to the largest stadium and, give or take the talent of the players and the ability of the officials, the game will be played the same. The players will on occasion cheat and the officials will make mistakes.

One of the suggestions is to implement video technology or indeed, introduce radio tracking of the ball, to determine when it has crossed the goal line. This would actually probably work, given that it doesn’t particularly suffer from most of the problems that other technologies might bring.

However, it still makes football a more complicated spectacle. Think of the cost and stoppages. Additionally, if such technology was a success would it result in further innovation? This could ultimately lead to far worse consequences. One can already hear the cries of “we’ve seen how well technology works with the chip in the ball so….”

Even if one accepts the idea that where millions of pounds are potentially at stake, then there can no longer be mistakes, the deeper issues still need to be examined. The arguments that seem to come up again and again include “the cameras are there, let’s use them”, and “they do it in other sports”. These statements are both true, but the point of football is it’s flow. In sports like rugby and cricket where adjudication is requested from the fourth official with a TV monitor, the game has reached a natural break – a couple of minutes of well, nothing. If the game rests upon the decision then the waiting game can infact be quite exciting but if it’s the fourth time in an unappealing game, then indeed it can be rather frustrating. Do we really want to see the fourth official put up the board reading 27 additional minutes? I certainly don’t.

Furthermore, in football a contentious offside decision, for instance is not necessarily a natural break. If it is offside then there is a free kick and break but if not then play continues as normal. Therefore if technology to resolve controversial offside decisions, a player diving or the penalty that never was came into the game, then presumably one must wait for a natural break before examining the evidence for a decision that could well have occurred minutes before. And thus the flow is broken. Yes, the technology is also there for us to track every player on the pitch in real time and the opportunity to supposedly get to the bottom of every last decision. But who wants to see this?

Having determined where everyone is using the dozens of cameras covering each top game we’re still left with the problem in the third round of the FA Cup where the big team travels to the minnows with their shed as a stand. Hardly the same is it. That brings on another issue? Where would the technology stop? Would it be used primarily for the elite leagues? Would this lead to further problems?

More so, think about the pub after the game or MOTD the same night. If technology was implemented then we’d have nothing to talk about. None of that, “Was it over the line?” or “Should it have been a penalty?”

So it seems that on Saturday, the committee have a decision on their hands but for me there is no contest: Football is simple. It should remain that way for the sake of the game, so that school ground arguments don’t degenerate into trying to convince the teacher to check the CCTV camera to decide on a goal, so that the game played on a Sunday afternoon is the same as those played at 3pm on a Saturday and we continue to see fans screaming at the ref after every contentious decision. Yes, mistakes will be made but it is part of the game: a game that we all love.

Sky Sports News Looking At Issue This Week

Is it Time for Technology? As the prospect of video replays looms on the horizon again, Sky Sports News asks the burning question this week. All week they will be running a series of reports on the hottest debate in the game as the International Football Board (IFAB) meet on Saturday.

Yesterday Sky Sports News' Jeremy Langdon was out canvassing the opinions of the big names in the game - FIFA, referees and of course, managers.

Today they will look at what has happened in other sports, where the use of machines has helped removed human error, not least in Super League where Sky Sports have been at the heart of the video replays to decide on tries.There will also be a take on how it has helped or maybe hindered cricket, tennis and the NFL and a look at the options available to football.

Then on Saturday morning, it's the all-important International Board meeting, which will discuss possible changes to the existing laws of the game - and any new proposals.

You are able to submit your own views on their website at this link: http://www.skysports.com/skysports/article/0,,84-1253702,00.html

Have you seen any of the features? What did you think?

David Elleray Interview

In the last couple of days I have got in touch with David Elleray, an ex-Premiership referee to see what his opinions are on the matter.The full interview can be accessed from the link below but here are the main talking points:

Do you feel that new media technologies associated with resolving controversial decisions should be introduced into football?

In general I am opposed to the use of technology (with one exception) as I believe that one of the essential attractions of football is that, unlike American football, rugby, cricket, there are very few lengthy stoppages and, for much of the time, it is almost non-stop action. Controversy is also part of the ‘enjoyment’ of the game – people love arguing/discussing incidents, decisions etc...

If yes…
How much technology do you feel should be brought into the game (i.e should it just be used just for goal line decisions or applied to resolve offsides, off the ball incidents)


I would be in favour of goal-line technology for ‘goals’ to let the referee know whether or not the ball fully crossed the line as this is a very difficult decision as the referee/assistant referee is sometimes not in the best position to judge (though no fault of his own).

If these technologies were introduced do you feel that the level of audience satisfaction would alter?

IF the above was introduced I think everyone in the game would be happy. If other technologies came in I believe that whilst there might be fewer disputes the game would become less attractive it would last longer and there would be less flow to the game.

Do you have any personal experiences relating to the matter? Could technology have assisted you?

Technology of the goal-line could have assisted me in the FA Cup semi-final between Middlesbrough and Chesterfield when we could not tell if the ball crossed the line for what would have been Chesterfield’s third goal which would have sent them to the Final (they lost the replay)

Tuesday 27 February 2007

Steve Bennett Interview

As part of my research I interviewed Steve Bennett, a Premiership referee, to see where he stood on the topic of technology in football. I have published part of the interview below:

With the previous question in mind what are your views on implementing technology to assist referees in decision making?

"I don’t have any problem with technology – the only situation I believe it would work is goal line assistance providing the technology was reliable enough to give a positive decision within a few seconds of the incident happening. Sometimes a goal line judgement is extremely difficult and several different replays are required"


Do you think the introduction of technology would relieve some of the pressures on referees?

"Yes. But only for the above situation."


If technology was implemented by the Premier League, how do you think this would affect the role and status of the referee within the game?

"It would definitely enhance the referee’s decision making."

To view the full interview click here:

Controversy throughout the game

Here are some recent views by Premiership referees on the use of technology throughout sport:

Essentially, in rugby, as I understand it, if any part of the body hits the ground outside the field of play, regardless of where the ball is, then play should stop. Therefore Wilkinson (against Scotland in the Six Nations), with his right foot clearly hitting the deck before grounding the ball, should not have been credited with his try. All this oval-ball attention is relevant. Think back to poor, much maligned Pedro, and the calls for technology. And this is where the technology debate MUST be changed, and split into two. There are two arguments:

One is to introduce some sort of electronic device such as a microchip in the ball, to aid decision-making. The other is for video replays. The microchip-in-the-ball technology, used in a junior world tournament in 2005 and since developed and modified, will be put to trial at December's FIFA Club World Cup. I am perfectly happy with this method, should these trials prove successful. It only makes sense to use this technology if we have it at our disposal, and that the cost and practicalities make it possible. I am very much against video replays, and have been for some time, mentioning it repeatedly on these pages. To me, the Johnny Wilkinson incident is the counter argument to what happened a week previous with Pedro Mendes (Man Utd vs Portsmouth). The difference between the two strands? Us. Humans, Homo sapiens. If, and it is still a big if, the technology can be correctly made and proven, then it can be employed independent of us.

Look at tennis, who have for years used 'Cyclops' to indicate whether a serve is out, and now the hawkeye system for during open play. The trouble with replays was proven at Twickenham. Donal Courtney, who was the fourth official at the Calcutta Cup match, clearly called wrong. It was human error. Surely a camera in the goalmouth, or from whenever, is subject to the officials, even with the assistance of video replays, making mistakes of judgment. Many refer to the fact that refereeing decisions are part of the game, and that it provides a talking point post game. The counter claim is often that technology must be used to ensure fairness.

Taken from: http://www.football365.com/referee365/0,17033,8747_1899211,00.html

Will there be a decision sooner rather than later?

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) will vote on the introduction of goal-line technology at a meeting in Manchester next month, the Football Association has said.
The 121st annual meeting of the IFAB, which is entrusted with determining possible amendments to the worldwide laws of the game, will take place at the Lowry Hotel on Saturday 3rd March.
Among the items on this year's agenda, a vote is to be conducted on whether or not to introduce some form of technology that can be used in the middle of a game to determine if the ball has crossed the goal-line.
A three-quarters majority of the eight votes is needed to pass an amendment and the body consists of one representative from each of the football associations of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and four representatives, each with one vote, from world football's governing body Fifa.
Three separate projects, including a microchip being inserted in the ball and goal-line cameras and instant replay technology, are to be discussed.

Taken from: http://sport.monstersandcritics.com/soccer/article_1261869.php/Goal-line_technology_vote_next_month

Some extra info can be found here: http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/NewsFromTheFA/Postings/2007/02/IFAB_GoalLineTech.htm

Tuesday 20 February 2007

An Introduction

Over the next few days I will be publishing the work I have produced on the topic. I assessed the success of technolgy to resolve controversy in other sports such as cricket and tennis and talked about their introduction into football. My research included the study of news articles, interviews, books, newspaper articles, focus groups, questionnaires and posting on message boards. Below is part of what the study concluded:

"Having produced a detailed study into technology to resolve controversy, I have outlined a number of conclusions. The equipment that is currently used in cricket and tennis has been successful although the introduction of ‘hawk eye” into tennis has demonstrated that this is not enough. However what already exists, particularly in cricket has not only improved the fairness of the game but the satisfaction of the audience.

When it comes to football a clear trend has been established. Keith Hacknett (2005), the former referee stated that “There is no point in introducing technology without understanding the wider issues”
Having identified these wider issues assessing the opinions of the audience through questionnaires, message boards and focus groups it has become clear that technology in football seems imminent."
TIME FOR TECHNOLGY IN FOOTBALL?
As football fans, we've all probably lost count of the amount of times that our team has been hit with 'a goal that never was' or 'a penalty that should have been'. It is inevitable that the referee isn't going to be 100% accurate with his decision making but in today's day and age, when there is just so much on the line, something needs to be done. Whether the answer is video technology however, is something that were not all going to agree on.
Therefore I have created this blog to keep up to date with the ongoing argument and also to publish the heaps of research and work that i have already conducted on the topic.