Despite the best efforts of the Television Match Official (an Australian) denying England a try in the egg chasers World Cup final against South Africa, plus a few other howlers from the wide world of sport, it is getting increasingly difficult to understand football’s lack of enthusiasm for embracing science and in particular, goal line technology (GLT).

There are, of course, some sound reasons against it. Slowing the game down is one, as is the cost of development. But the arguments for not introducing such a scheme are weak in comparison with the benefits. Using the English Premier League as an example, here are just a few reasons why GLT should be used and why it should become the norm.

1) Players and managers are judged on results. Why should they be judged on results which are incorrect?

2) If an audience at home can see if a goal has or hasn’t been scored, how is it possible that the man in the middle can’t be informed of the fact?

3) TV companies and sponsors pay billions of pounds across the world to cover and be associated with major events. Shouldn’t they, their viewers and customers at least be rewarded with the correct result?

4) One wrong decision during a season leading to relegation stands to lose that club £50 million.

According to Sepp Blatter and Uefa President Michel Platini the answer to all of the above is a resounding ‘we don’t care’.

Despite the fact that they backed the idea over a year ago since when a huge amount of time and money has been spent on coming up with a solution based on the Hawk-Eye system, football’s power brokers gave the plan a thumbs down at a recent International FA Board meeting in Scotland. All of this was to the huge embarrassment to the English FA and Premier League who’ve been in the vanguard promoting the idea.

Instead, Platini has persuaded his colleagues to experiment with two extra linesman or goal line assistants. “There is a philosophical debate, it’s very simple,” Platini told The Sunday Telegraph. “Either you help them with additional pairs of eyes or with technology and I’m against technology. Once you start, who knows where you might stop. The 18-yard line, the offside trap? All I’m saying is let’s try my idea.”

Bearing in mind we are talking about goal line technology, it’s ironic that Platini, in opposition to the Hawk-Eye proposal, has simply moved the goal posts.

Strange, you might think, from a man who was part of one of the biggest miscarriages of justice the game has ever known. Clean through on goal in the 1982 World Cup semi finals, Platini’s team mate Patrick Battiston was one on one with the on rushing West German goal keeper Harold Schumacher. Schumacher launched himself at the Frenchman, his hip making contact with Battiston’s face, and the Frenchman fell to the ground unconscious. As Platini said at the time he thought his team mate was dead as he “had no pulse and looked pale.”

Now imagine that the goal line cameras were viewing the field of play and, during the lengthy delay while Battiston was treated, a TMO informed the referee that Schumacher should be dismissed. There is every chance that France would have gone on to win the game and ultimately the tournament itself. Platini’s view on technology might be very different with a World Cup winner’s medal on his mantelpiece.

Blatter insists that “There has been no change of heart. Referees make decisions, not machines,” he said. “I have defended goal-line technology but it has become clear that such systems are too complicated and very costly. Nor would they necessarily add anything positive to the game and could harm the authority of the referee.

“We have to maintain the laws of the game in their simplicity. Do you want technical devices to take decisions? That’s why, after three years of tests with no conclusions, I am in favour of putting the whole thing on ice.”

Cue an infuriated Hawk-Eye MD Paul Hawkins. “”I am livid,” he said.”This decision is completely out of the blue. A year ago they laid down four specific criteria and now they change their minds. My company has invested an awful lot of money and now we will get no return on our investment.”

More to the point however is that some club’s around the world are getting no return on their endeavour. Perfectly good goals not being given, hugely suspect one’s being awarded.

Football may be at the top of the tree in terms of it’s financial appeal but in technology terms, it continues to live in the dark ages.

Goal Line technology is likely to be introduced when the International Football Association Board meets next month.

The Goal line technology debate has long been a talking point in football and Footy Boots has recently run a series covering the subject which you can view below.

Part 1 - The Technology
Part 2 - Testing the Technology
Part 3 - Alternatives
Part 4 - A Manager’s Perspective

The use of video replays to resolve goal line decisions will be top of the agenda when the IFAB meets at Gleneagles in Scotland in March. The IFAB, football’s law making body, is composed of the four home associations, plus four FIFA representatives. It appears likely that the IFAB is likely to follow the sports of tennis and cricket by introducing technology to help decide whether or not the ball has crossed the line.

The IFAB is to consider various video technology options, ranging from hawk-eye camera technology to the Adidas Teamgeist II chip-in-a-ball system. The intelligent technology implemented in the Teamgeist II uses a magnetic field to provide real-time feedback to a central computer, which tracks the location of the ball on the field and sends the data directly to the referee. By using a magnetic field and more stabilized and robust components within the ball, the new system is more precise and is not influenced by in-game factors, adverse weather or nearby technical systems.

Many Premiership manager’s have backed the bid to introduce goal line technology, with Arsene Wenger one of its greatest advocates. Former top flight referee, Keith Hackett, however believes that the IFAB may be too set in its ways to implement a hawk-eye style video technology system, and may compromise by looking at introducing a refined microchip-in-a-ball system.

To complete our Goal Line Technology series, in part 4 we look at the opinions of some of the countries leading manager’s on the introduction of video technology:

This article on Goal Line Technology is part 4 of the series of 4.

Part 1 - Goal Line Technology - The Technology

Part 2 - Goal Line Technology - Testing the Technology

Part 3 - Goal Line Technology - Alternatives

Arsene Wenger:
“I’m in favour of it big time. I love football and when you love football you like justice to be respected. You should use what is available in order to be right in decision-making. Why should a team be allowed a goal that wasn’t in? You will never get 100 percent of decisions right but surely you have to give yourself every chance? Those who oppose video technology point to the time consumed by its introduction but I think they are wrong. Do you know how much of a 90-minute match is effectively played? About 55-60 minutes. You lose 30 minutes in a game anyway, much of it due to referees explaining decisions to players. All this would be cut out and you would actually gain time if technology was used. It wouldn’t take power away from the ref but it would be at his disposal if he wants to use.”

Mark Hughes:
“It’s inevitable at some point that video technology will be introduced because of the vast sums on offer and at stake, and everything that’s involved at Premiership level. What mustn’t happen though is for the continuity of the game to be affected, and the game as we know it mustn’t be changed in any way. If they can overcome that and make sure that when videos are reviewed it’s done at the right time with the natural breaks in the game, then I think it will be introduced.”

Rafa Benitez:
“Maybe [use it] for disciplinary situations but we have a referee, two linesmen and a fourth official and that should be enough. If we use the four as referees sometimes they don’t talk to each other but it is enough to control the game. I would be happy with video for disciplinary situations. For me, if you change anything else you will lose something from the game. Sometimes even the video cannot prove anything, different angles produce different opinions.”

Mmm!may Rafa’s opinions have been swayed by the referees’s decision to allow the controversial Luis Garcia goal to stand in the 2005 Champions League Semi Final against Chelsea?!”

Martin Jol (after Pedro Mendes clear goal was disallowed against Manchester United in 2005):
“You have to say that technology needs to be introduced because we feel robbed - and rightly so. The referee is already wearing an earpiece so why can’t we just stop the game and get the decision right. We talk about new technology all the time but nothing seems to happen, yet it would be so easy to put something there on the line to help the game.

And finally, former top flight referee, Keith Hackett’s opinion:
“I’d love to see some technology to assist us with goal line decisions. The general feeling in football is that technology, if it was available, would assist. The governing body [FIFA] is reluctant to introduce any form of video technology and is concentrating more on goal line technology with a chip inserted into the ball which sends out a signal. I am in the hands - like all of football - of FIFA who are spending a great amount of time and effort in terms of this chip in the ball to try to introduce it as quickly as possible to the top-level game.”

Part 1 - Goal Line Technology - The Technology
Part 2 - Goal Line Technology - Testing the Technology

Part 3 - Goal Line Technology - Alternatives

Uefa are to trial the use of two extra assistant referees in the penalty area at both free-kicks and corners as an alternative to goal line technology.

This article on Goal Line Technology is part 3 of the series of 4.

Part 1 - Goal Line Technology - The Technology

Part 2 - Goal Line Technology - Testing the Technology

Part 4 - Goal Line Technology - A Managers Perspective

The idea of Uefa boss Michel Platini is to be trialled at youth tournaments.

“The game’s a lot faster now, it’s hard to keep up with play all the time,” said Uefa spokesman William Gaillard.

The experiment will include using the assistants both behind the goal-line and inside the penalty box as extra eyes and ears for the referee.

“We have the go-ahead from the International FA Board to conduct trials on this and we believe it could work,” added Gaillard. “They would be just like the linesmen, talking to the ref through a radio system. Some people say it is better for them to stay behind the goal, others that it is better inside the penalty area so that things that go on like pulling and pushing are properly sanctioned.”

Footy Boots has recently run a mini series on Goal Line Technology, following the release of the new Adidas Teamgeist II intelligent football, which was trialled at the FIFA Club World Cup in Japan.

Certainly the debate over whether the ball has crossed the line or not is considered a huge talking point in football and a wrong decision which leads to a lost match can potentially relegate a football club, costing millions in lost revenue at the end of a season. Footy Boots believes even with the addition of more match officials, human error will still occur, so is it now time to take goal-line decisions out of the hands of officials and rely on more advanced technology?

This article on Goal Line Technology is part 3 of the series of 4.

Part 1 - Goal Line Technology - The Technology
Part 2 - Goal Line Technology - Testing the Technology

Part 4 - Goal Line Technology - A Managers Perspective

In the second instalment of our goal line technology series, we look at the roadtesting of the new intelligent football at the FIFA Club World Cup, in an attempt to bring about a solution to the age old debate of whether the ball has crossed the goal-line.

Part 1 - Goal Line Technology - The Technology

Part 3 - Goal Line Technology - Alternatives

Part 4 - Goal Line Technology - A Managers Perspective

New intelligent ball receives mixed response

The new Adidas Teamgeist II intelligent football has drawn a mixed response after being tested at the FIFA Club World Cup.

The football contains a microchip designed to alert the referee when it has crossed the goal-line, in an attempt to end goal-scoring disputes.

The system uses magnetic fields and a sensor attached to the inside of a football with a 12-point suspension system. Wires cut into the pitch around and behind the penalty area emit a magnetic field which, when data is fed to a central computer, can track the location of the ball and show whether a shot has crossed the line. An encrypted signal is sent to watches worn by the referee and match officials to indicate a goal.

A shot by Pachucha’s Gabriel Caballero in the Mexican teams’ 1-0 defeat to African champions Etoile Sportive du Sahel saw the system called into action for the first time.

However players and coaches are divided over the quality the ball, with a number questioning its trajectory.

AC Milan coach Carlo Ancelotti said his players were generally pleased with the ball, although midfielder Clarence Seedorf said it was harder to control. “For various technical reasons we still have to get used to certain trajectories, but generally we are able to kick it well. This new ball is a little difficult to control, but when you hit it well it’s even more difficult for the keeper to grab it,” said the Dutch veteran.

Boca Juniors coach Miguel Angel Russo said one of his defenders, Hugo Ibarra, was not impressed. “Ibarra said that as he is not used to it, its trajectory changes,” Russo said. “If you use a new ball in such an important tournament, players have to put in a lot of effort to get used to it.”

The technology was first tested at the 2005 Under-17 World Cup, using radio transmissions to track the ball across the pitch, but was deemed inaccurate.

“It’s good. We did not notice any different particulars with regards to other Adidas balls,” said Ancelotti, whose team beat Boca 4-2 in the final. “It is has a good consistency and the trajectories are respected.”

Adidas’s reponse was to hail the new intelligent ball as a success. Adidas’s Head of FIFA Affairs Gunter Pfau commented: “Tests during the tournament’s opening matches show the system is working and football’s lawmakers must decide whether to approve the technology for wider use. Until now we are very satisfied. No ball was damaged, all the systems during the games worked and the players’ feedback here has been very positive.”

The International Football Association Board, which establishes the laws of football, says goal-line technology must be proven to be 100 percent accurate before its use in other tournaments, including the World Cup. Both companies declined to comment on the degree of accuracy shown by the tests.

Part 1 - Goal Line Technology - The Technology

Part 3 - Goal Line Technology - Alternatives

Part 4 - Goal Line Technology - A Managers Perspective

The new ‘Intelligent Football’

This article on Goal Line Technology is part 1 of the series of 4.

Part 2 - Goal Line Technology - Testing the Technology

Part 3 - Goal Line Technology - Alternatives

Part 4 - Goal Line Technology - A Managers Perspective

Ever since the ‘did it, didn’t it cross the line’ debate sparked by Geoff Hurst second ‘goal’ in the 1966 World Cup Final, the arguments for and against the introduction of goal line technology have rarely been out of the headlines.

In recent years, goal line technology would have not allowed the Bobby Zamora ‘goal’ against Blackburn last season which helped move West Ham off the bottom of the Premiership and may have in some small part contributed to them avoiding relegation.

On the other hand, goal line technology would have allowed Spurs Pedro Mendes’ 50 yard lob which calamity Manchester United keeper Roy Carroll clearly juggled a full metre over his own line in the Red Devils 0-0 draw in January 2005.

In an attempt to eliminate the debate surrounding whether the ball crossed the line or not, Adidas has launched the Teamgeist 2, a new intelligent ball, designed to assist the referee’s decision in determining when and if the ball has crossed the goal line. The intelligent ball has been tested at the FIFA Club World Cup in Japan, formerly the FIFA World Club Championships.

“The purpose of the Adidas intelligent ball and Goal Line Technology is to provide greater transparency during a match and to assist the referee in making quick decisions that can impact the outcome and quality of the game” said Hans-Peter Nuernberg, Senior Development Engineer, Adidas Innovation Team. “We expect the system to perform very well during the FIFA Club World Cup in Japan and we will continue to refine the system so that it is 100% accurate.”

The intelligent technology implemented in the Teamgeist II uses a magnetic field to provide real-time feedback to a central computer, which tracks the location of the ball on the field and sends the data directly to the referee. By using a magnetic field and more stabilized and robust components within the ball, the new system is more precise and is not influenced by in-game factors, adverse weather or nearby technical systems.

“With the complexities and precision needed for Goal Line Technology, it is imperative that the system is tested in a variety of competitive in-game situations,” said Christian Holzer, COO of Cairos technologies. “The opportunity to test the new technology during such a competitive tournament will supply us with the valuable feedback needed in order to continue refining the system.”

Since 2003, Adidas and Cairos in cooperation with FIFA, have developed the Goal Line Technology, which was first publicly tested in 2005 during the U-17 FIFA World Cu in Peru. The first system used radio transmissions to correspond with a central computer and a microchip suspended in the ball to determine its location on the field. The new Goal Line Technology and Adidas intelligent ball have been redeveloped since 2005 to address the critical situations in which better accuracy is needed.

Following the testing during the FIFA Club World Cup in Japan, the results will be evaluated and next steps will be determined by Cairos technologies and Adidas as to when the system will be ready to test again publicly. The new system currently meets all International Football Association Board (IFAB) requirements and the ball has been approved by FIFA for competitive international play.

Goto; Part 2 - Goal Line Technology - Testing the Technology

Goto Part 3 - Goal Line Technology - Alternatives

Goto Part 4 - Goal Line Technology - A Managers Perspective