Que Golazo & Zamundinho: The Qustion Concerning Technology

Zamundinho:
Thanks for joining us for a debate of this most important and contentious issue. I'll let our gallivanting gumshoe, Que Golazo, open up the debate. Please join in the debate in the comments section.



Que Golazo:

This tournament's high-profile refereeing mistakes have apparently prompted FIFA's governing body to take serious action - issue a statement to the press stating that they will look into things:

"It is obvious that after the experiences so far at this World Cup it would be a nonsense not to reopen the file on goal-line technology," stated Blatter.
How this file came to be shut, and what procedures are in place for going about opening it, are of course issues shrouded in mystery to the common soccer fan. Presumably, that is the way Blatter likes it. Here, I will pose for discussion the question concerning GOAL-LINE TECHNOLOGY. I will leave the matter of video replay (which I have previously commented on) aside for the moment and focus on technology that automatically determines whether a ball has completely cleared the goal line for a goal. For the sake of discussion, let us presume that we are talking about a chip inside the ball that can determine its position relative to the goal line (such technology does indeed exist), and let us presume that this technology is relatively accurate (98% or better). I believe the alternative is a "hawk-eye" type of technology such as exists in tennis.
From what I can glean, here are the counter-arguments to goal-line technology:
1. It "removes the human element" from the game of soccer.
2. It is a "slippery slope" - how far will technology go to displace human officiating?
3. Officiating mistakes draw attention and create talking points in the pub.
4. It would not be implemented at all levels of the game, thus creating a discrepancy between the highest levels of the sport and the way it is played in the barrio, something that is against the spirit of the world's sport.

Of these four arguments, I believe the only one with any validity is the fourth, so I will address the first three first:
1. Technology removes the human element. Indeed. What is crucial, however, is that it removes the human element on the side of the OFFICIATING and not on the side of the PLAY ITSELF. I am not advocating goal-line technology in the sense of technology that can score goals. What, then, are the benefits of human intervention in this role? "The human element"is essentially a euphemism for the potential for mistake. I see no ethical, practical, or humanitarian reason against removing "the human element" in THESE instances. If you like, instead of having an automatic ruling, the head official can be alerted if the ball crosses the goal line and can make the final decision himself. Indeed, this would be necessary for the Lampard situation, since play continued after the unawarded goal. In this instance, the referee would have been alerted that the ball had crossed the line, and he would have to blow his whistle to stop the play and reset the game. So we're not REPLACING humans, we're just giving them more precise information about the run of play - augmented reality, if you like.

2. Goal-line technology is a "slippery slope". I don't really believe in slippery slopes, and I find slippery slope arguments weak and simplistic. We are looking at one issue right now and we are considering one solution. If, once this issue has been resolved, other issues crop up that need consideration, then they will be decided according to their merit. What a "slippery slope" suggests is not that one mistake can lead to many further mistakes, but rather that one correct and necessary change might lead to further correct and necessary changes. It is, in a way, an admission that change needs to be made, but a refusal to do so from fear that other changes will have to be made. Regarding the logistics of the game, however, it does not disrupt anything to have one specific instance of the rules be aided by technology while others aren't. It is simply a partial improvement on a broader problem. And what if we do continue this way? Why not sideline technology that could determine if a ball is played out of bounds? Perhaps a chip is placed in players' boots that determines who touched the ball last, even? I see such implementations as only a matter of time, broadly speaking. We shouldn't shun them on purely atavistic or technophobic grounds. As one ESPN commentator noted, isn't it "technology" that helps officials communicate during the game via headsets? Or keep track of time? Or announce substitutions? All we are doing is helping them do their job more precisely.

3. Officiating mistakes create memorable moments for people to argue about down at the pub. I won't really be addressing this argument. It's not really an argument, even though I believe Blatter has made such an argument in the past (citation missing).

4. Goal-line technology creates an imbalance between the game as it is played at its highest and lowest levels. FIFA, purportedly, views soccer as the world's sport, the people's sport, and wants it to be played exactly the same way on the world's stage and at home. Of course, this ignores the billions of dollars that are at stake in tournaments like the World Cup, Euro, Champions League, etc. as compared to the relatively low stakes of a schoolyard pickup game. It ignores such fundamental differences in favor of a vague, idealistic maxim to preserve consistency and regularity. I believe this argument has some intuitive appeal, and ideally the game would be the same irrespective of financial differences, but the practicalities of the situation make it moot. We are not suggesting different rules for different levels of play. We are simply implementing technology at levels of the game that are extremely high stakes that allow the officials to carry out the dictates of the rules in a more precise manner. I didn't have a fourth official when I was playing AYSO (I doubt we even had linesmen) but that didn't take away from the play of the game and it doesn't make the World Cup seem elitist. As I said, this argument does embody a positive ideal, but there is no need to sacrifice reality at the expense of it.

Zamundinho:
As to argument 4:
'Tis indeed a noble ideal: to play the same game in Soccer City as they do in the barrios, but video review would only widen the cultural divide between the games top and bottom levels.  After all, players in the barrios rarely have real soccer balls, and I can guarantee that none of them are playing with the Jabulani.  FIFA already makes concessions to the times (marketing a new gimmick ball each tournament) that stratify the sport.  Why not start making some that are worthwhile?

Que Golazo:

Soccer is one of the only professional sports that does not employ technology in the aid of the officials on the field (ignoring headsets, etc. as already mentioned). Basketball, baseball, football, tennis, rugby, cricket, etc. all employ technology in some way at the professional level. Inversely, such technology is absent at the amateur level. Due to soccer's illustrious history, tradition, and "flow of the game," there are many delicate issues involved with implementing technology. However, goal-line technology is relatively innocuous and uncontroversial. The time has come to adopt it. FIFA is embarrassed at the state of the game - they are even trying to stop replays from being shown on the big screens in the stadiums since this makes officiating mistakes immediately obvious to everyone in the stands and on the pitch.  The alternative, I suppose, is to double the number of officials on and around the pitch, however, this would still not be as accurate as the available technology, and it would still create an imbalance at the highest level of play.
I hope FIFA decides to adopt this technology. If not, perhaps the MLS can do the American thing and boldly go where no other FA has gone before. We could prove that such technology is viable, it would bring attention to MLS, and it would be an excellent case of leading by example. I repeat: it is simply a matter of time.

Zamundinho:

The real argument here is not (or at least shouldn't be) whether to implement goal-line technology, but whether and how to implement any form of video review technology.  I propose two options, both of which have worked for other international sports, each of which presents its own changes to the game.

A: An American-football style coach's challenge, that would prompt a review from the leading official. 
This could be structured such that coaches only recieve two challenges per game, and that if they challenge incorrectly, they lose a substitution.  Some sort of penalty clause like this would be imperative to keep such coach's challenges from getting excessive.  I certainly don't want to slow the game down, or create anything which resembles American football, but this system would at least allow truly game-changing calls (goals, offsides, cards, etc) to be selectively mitigated.

B: A Rugby-style video-referree review for any goal-related close call.
In the IRB, the main referee pauses before awarding any disputable try (a score, in rugby) to listen to the 4th official in the video booth.  The 4th official informs the head referee of his opinion, they agree, and the referee makes the call.  The IRB has perfected this technology: the referee is mic'd up for the broadcast so fans can hear the exchange, and the whole process usually takes less than 20 seconds, from when the Referee touches his ear to when he announces, "try awarded!"  The 4th official with video access can only inform the main referee of what he sees on the screen when a try (goal)-related close call occurs.

Of the two options above, I think option A alters the game significantly more than option B, though neither alters the game much.  However, option A might also improve the game (God forbid!), adding a new layer of strategy in deciding how important a particular challange might be.  Furthermore, one beneficial side-effect of Option A might be a reduction in the number of blatant dives, and a curtailing of the increasingly broadway-worthy antics of many of today's top players.  If you know that your card- or goal-inducing dive could be reviewed, overturned, and made into the next youtube laughing stock, you might stay on your feet and continue the play.