Technology in Football

We'll start todays blog slightly off-piste, but bear with me because I'm getting there...as some of may know, Joey Barton has decided to expand his musings beyond the 140 characters afforded to him by Twitter and has begun writing a column for The Big Issue.  The January offering was more of an explanation as to why he has decided to take on the column, but in the latest issue of The Big Issue Joey has turned to his thoughts about the game, and in particular the use of technology in the beautiful game.

I had been meaning to do a short post about my thoughts about the place of technology in football for a while, so what better time than now when I've just finished reading an article which puts across a different viewpoint to my own.  I will say now, I do not intend to wholly or partially assess, regurgitate or summarise Joey's article owing to the publication it appears in, but what I will do is just pick out a couple of key points where the views differ...if you want to read Joey's article after having read this then I suggest you go out and buy a copy of The Big Issue, its only £2.50.

I think as a whole we are past the point of whether there should or shouldn't be technology in the modern game, the main point of debate as far as I can see is to what extent technology should be involved in the sport.

Many advocates of technology (including Joey) point to the use in other sports, but is this really relevant?  Sports like rugby, cricket and tennis all use technology well and it adds to the game, however these are sports with a natural break and usually technology is only used for a small percentage of decision making.  Cricket uses the third umpire to make decisions on whether a batsman should be given out, for this to happen the ball has been bowled, the batter has hit (or not) the ball and there may even have been running between the wickets...but by the time the incident is reviewed by the third umpire, the action has stopped, the play is over and it seems logical to be able to wait for a decision.  Tennis is similar, points are played to the end, at which point the players are allowed to make a challenge on a decision, and we do all love the hawk-eye graphic complete with the crescendo of the crowd as the computer graphic reaches its apex.  Again, there is a natural break in the play, and in most circumstances this will only to decide one of a minimum of 48 points (assuming a three set match where all the games are won 40-0, and the sets are won 6-0, 6-0).

The closest current usage of technology in sport to how it could be used in football is probably rugby.  The video ref in a game of rugby only really gets called upon in one circumstance, when the ref requires help in determining if a try is to be given or not...and to be honest, when there are ten 20-stone behemoths all piling over the top of a tiny rugby ball I think we would all need some help.  The key difference again is the natural break.  If it is decided that the try is legal, then the 5-points are added and the ball is taken for the conversion attempt, if it is not a try then either the defending side has grounded the ball or they have been held up, meaning that the ball is 'dead' by the letter of the law and a 5m scrum is awarded.  The video ref is never used to verify the refs decision with regards to an infringement.

As far as I am concerned the only place where technology could feasibly work in football is in the case of goal line technology.  Having said that, I do not mean through the use of a video ref or some repackaged hawk-eye since these would result in the game being stopped for review...the problem with this is, how do you re-start the game after the stoppage if the ball didn't cross the line?  If play hadn't been stopped, the attacking team could have forged another opening whilst the defence were in disarray, similarly, the defending side may have been able to capitalise on the attacking sides appeals to the ref and have hit on the counter attack and scored a goal of their own.  Goal line technology needs to be automatic, by that I mean that it should be set up so that if the ball crosses the line a signal is sent to the ref who can then give the goal...quick and clean.  FIFA have run tests on various technologies and there are multiple companies around the world researching different mechanisms for this.

It is unfeasible for technology to be used for any other aspect of the game...how can a penalty decision be referred to a video ref without stopping the game, again, the same factors above come into play.  Obviously if you happen to benefit from the stoppage then happy days, but then at what point to refs decide to refer the decision?  Human error is part of the game, even with technology it would be part of the game since there would be a human element in when to refer the decisions.